'Xbox Murders' Add to Florida's Death Penalty Debate
As courts across the state scramble to figure out how to apply a new death-penalty law, the resentencing of two men convicted in a notorious Volusia County case known as the "Xbox murders" adds to the questions.
September 26, 2023 at 01:12 PM
4 minute read
Cases and CourtsAs courts across Florida have scrambled this year to figure out how to apply a new death-penalty law, the resentencing of two men convicted in a notorious Volusia County case known as the "Xbox murders" added to the questions.
Jury selection had started in April in the resentencing of Troy Victorino and Jerone Hunter when Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the law, which eliminated a requirement for unanimous jury recommendations before defendants could be sentenced to death. Under the new law, death sentences can be imposed after 8-4 jury recommendations.
The law has touched off widespread litigation and questions about whether the unanimity requirement should apply to older cases, such as the case of Victorino and Hunter who needed to be resentenced in the 2004 murders. But the Volusia case had the added complication of being in the midst of jury selection when the law took effect.
Volusia County Circuit Judge Randell Rowe ruled that the unanimity requirement should apply, saying that using the new law would violate due-process rights of Victorino and Hunter. Prosecutors appealed, and a panel of the 5th District Court of Appeal overturned Rowe's ruling.
The panel on Friday followed up by issuing a detailed opinion about why it concluded the new law should apply after jury selection started.
"In sum, this record shows that the change to (the law) was entirely foreseeable to all parties," said the opinion, written by Judge Harvey Jay and joined fully by Judge Brian Lambert and partially by Judge John Harris. "The record suggests that both sides were cognizant of the impact the new law would have on this proceeding and tailored their litigation strategies — including the scope and even the existence of voir dire (questioning of potential jurors) — to maximize the chance that their preferred version of the statute would apply. It is not for us to comment on the reasonableness of those strategic choices made by experienced attorneys, especially given the inevitably distorting effect of hindsight."
The ruling also rejected arguments that resentencing the men under the new law would violate what is known as the "ex post facto" clauses in the state and federal constitutions. The clauses prevent creating crimes or increasing penalties for conduct that happened in the past.
Jay wrote that the ex post facto clauses didn't apply in resentencing Victorino and Hunter because moving away from a unanimity requirement was "procedural."
"A procedural change — even one that works to a defendant's disadvantage — is generally not an ex post facto law since it does not alter substantive personal rights," Jay wrote. "A law is procedural when it alters how a criminal case is adjudicated instead of addressing the substantive criminal law. … Here, the amendment to (the law) is a quintessentially procedural change that has no substantive effect."
Victorino and Hunter were convicted in the murders of six people in a Deltona home in a case that drew national attention. The case became known as the "Xbox murders" because it involved a dispute about some of Victorino's belongings, including an Xbox video-game system. Victorino, Hunter and two other men were accused of breaking into the house and bludgeoning the victims with baseball bats.
Victorino and Hunter each received four death sentences. At the time, Florida law only required majority jury recommendations — 7-5 votes — before judges could sentence defendants to death.
But resentencing was ordered after a series of events related to a 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case known as Hurst v. Florida and a subsequent Florida Supreme Court decision.
The 2016 U.S. Supreme Court ruling found Florida's death-penalty sentencing system was unconstitutional because it gave too much authority to judges, instead of juries. The subsequent Florida Supreme Court ruling said juries must unanimously agree on critical findings before judges can impose death sentences and must unanimously recommend the death penalty. The Legislature responded in 2017 by putting such a unanimous requirement in law.
Because their original jury recommendations were not unanimous, resentencing was ordered for Victorino, Hunter and numerous other death row inmates.
The Florida Supreme Court in 2020 reversed course on the death penalty and said unanimous jury recommendations were not necessary. That opened the door for the Legislature and DeSantis this year to change state law and go to an 8-4 requirement, instead of requiring unanimity.
The law, however, has spawned questions in a variety of older death-penalty cases.
Rowe wound up in May declaring a mistrial in the Victorino and Hunter resentencing proceedings. Online Volusia County court dockets did not indicate Monday when new proceedings would be held.
The appeals-court panel said the mistrial did not moot the need for issuing Friday's opinion.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250