Florida Supreme Court affirms Mark Wilson's death sentences

Wilson was convicted of killing his girlfriend’s nephews in the fall of 2020. Following the jury’s unanimous recommendation for death, the trial court sentenced Wilson to death on both counts.

This afternoon, as part of its regular release of opinions, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision in Wilson v. State affirming Mark Wilson’s convictions for first-degree murder and death sentences.

Wilson was convicted of killing his girlfriend’s nephews (aged 12 and 14) in the fall of 2020. Following the jury’s unanimous recommendation for death under Florida’s prior capital sentencing scheme, the trial court sentenced Wilson to death on both counts.

Wilson raised the following claims: (A) “the trial court erred by allowing the jury to consider the CCP aggravator,” (B) “the trial court erred in rejecting proposed mitigating evidence that Wilson was intoxicated by methamphetamine at the time of the murders,” (C) “the trial court erred in allowing victim impact testimony about past traumas to the victims’ family,” (D) “the trial court erred in declining to give a special jury instruction indicating that a life sentence virtually precludes a defendant’s release from prison,” (E) the trial court erred in denying his request for a change in the jury instructions related to mitigating circumstances, (F) the trial court erred in denying his request for a special penalty phase jury instruction regarding mercy, (G) “the trial court erred in denying his motion [related to sympathy] and that the instruction given to the jury that its ‘decision must not be based upon the fact that you feel sorry for anyone or are angry at anyone’ violated the Eighth Amendment,” (H) the Florida Supreme Court wrongly decided Lawrence v. State, 308 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 2020), (I) “Florida’s death penalty scheme fails to narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty to comport with the Eighth Amendment,” (J) “death qualifying a jury is unconstitutional,” and (K) “the death penalty is unconscionable.”

Justice Labarga concurred in result, writing:

The full Opinion can be downloaded from the Court’s website here.