Simpson v. State
The Fifth DCA affirmed convictions for attempted second-degree murder and felon-in-possession, rejecting fundamental-error challenges to Florida's six-person jury system and, in a lengthy concurrence, addressing a first-impression facial Second Amendment challenge to section 790.23(1)(a) under the post-Bruen (NYSRPA) historical-tradition framework. The court held that Williams v. Florida remains binding and forecloses the six-person-jury claim, and that although felons are part of 'the people' protected by the Second Amendment's text, the felon-in-possession statute survives facial scrutiny because it has constitutional applications to dangerous felons like Simpson; the court declined to certify the question given the unsettled state of related U.S. Supreme Court litigation (Rahimi, Range).
Key facts
- Simpson was convicted of attempted second-degree murder and felon-in-possession of a firearm and challenged his conviction on Sixth Amendment jury-size and Second Amendment grounds.
- The trial court impaneled a six-person jury in this non-capital case, and Simpson argued the conviction violated the Sixth Amendment and Florida's state constitutional guarantee of an impartial jury.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This opinion is notable for its extended, first-impression analysis applying the Bruen/NYSRPA historical-tradition test to Florida's felon-in-possession statute, concluding it survives facial (though not necessarily all… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.