Wilson v. State
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed Mark Wilson's death sentences for the murders of his girlfriend's two young nephews. The Court rejected claims that the trial court erred in submitting the CCP (cold, calculated, premeditated) aggravator to the jury despite a mid-deliberation jury question suggesting possible lack of unanimity on premeditation, held the trial court properly weighed methamphetamine-intoxication mitigation, upheld admission of victim impact testimony referencing prior family tragedies, and rejected requests for special instructions on 'life means life,' removal of the word 'reasonably' from the mitigation instruction, a 'mercy' instruction, and exclusion of 'sorry for' language. The Court also reaffirmed Lawrence's abandonment of comparative proportionality review and rejected various systemic constitutional challenges to Florida's death penalty scheme.
Key facts
- Mark Wilson was convicted of two murders of his girlfriend's young nephews and sentenced to death.
- The trial court instructed the jury on the cold, calculated, premeditated (CCP) aggravator despite a mid-deliberations jury question suggesting possible disagreement on premeditation.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This per curiam capital opinion is useful primarily for capital litigators because it addresses a recurring problem—a guilt-phase jury question suggesting disagreement on premeditation—and clarifies that such confusion… — 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.