Fla. Stat, (1981) - Florida State University College of Law

mitigating circumstance in a capital case,
S. Ct, 3418, 3440 (1983) I (Wshall, J. diaseultbg2
The juy reccarmendatilon:
-
See Wclax v. FlorLdq, 103
This Court first explained the bportance of a jury recmmndation of
-
life in Tedder v. State, 322 So. 2d 908 @lae 1975):
A jury remnmmdation under OUT trifurcated death penalty statute
should be given great weight. In order to sustain a sentence of
death following a jury reccmmmdation of life, the facts suggesting
a sentence of death should be so clear and convincing that virtually
no reasonable person could differ. Tedder, supra at 910.
In applying the Tedder standard, the Court must determine if thexe was a
reasonable basis for the jury recamadation. If there is a reasonable basis,
then the jury recamendation must stand. Mlloy v. State, 382 So. 2d 1190
(Fla. 1979). A jury life remmrsendation eliminates any presunption that death
is the appropriate penalty when one or mre aggravating circumstances are
present. Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1980).
All of the mitigating cirmtances presented by the defendant have
been found by this court to form a reasonable basis for a juyy life remmndation:
(1) Intoxication on drugs and alcohol. mff, supra; Buckran,
supra, Norris v. State, 429 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1983).
(2) mess or coercion. Goochin, supra.
(3) Felatively minor participation, or dispute as to participation.
Taylor, supra; Slater, supra; Malloy, supra; Hawkins, supra.
(4) Parent of 2 young children. Jacobs, supra.
(5) The defendant's family backgrod. McCampbell, supra;
Washingtan- v. State, 432 So. 2d 44, (Fla. 1983).
(6) Sentences of m-defedants. Slater, supra; Msllloy, supra;
Neary v. State, 384 So, 2d 881 (Fla. 1980); Barfield v. State, 402
So. 2d 377 (.Ella. 1981); WcaXkillv, State 344 So, 2d 1276 (Fla.
-r
1977).
Page -83-