Terence Tobias Oliver, Appellant v. State of Florida, Appellee — Quince, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part

Summary

Justice Quince joins the majority on most of Oliver’s claims but dissents on three key points, holding that the trial court’s admission of shotgun testimony, its finding that the murder was committed in a cold, calculated manner, and the Hurst error are not harmless; consequently, he would require a new penalty phase. He argues that the shotgun evidence, while relevant to timeline, was not material and that the jury’s verdict was not affected, yet the aggravating factor findings lack competent substantial evidence and the Hurst error mandates resentencing.