Quentin Marcus Truehill, Appellant v. State of Florida, Appellee — Quince, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting In…

Summary

Justice Quince, writing a concurring in part and dissenting in part, held that while the evidence supported Truehill’s convictions, the Hurst error could not be deemed harmless because certain aggravating factors required jury factual findings. He therefore dissented from the majority’s harmless‑error conclusion. Justice Pariente, in a separate concurrence, argued that three of the six aggravating factors did not require separate jury findings and that the unanimous jury recommendation rendered the Hurst error harmless, and thus he concurred with the majority.