Florida Supreme Court affirms Steven Wolf's death sentence

On Thursday, as part of its regular release of opinions, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Steven Wolf’s sentence of death of direct appeal.

On Thursday, as part of its regular release of opinions, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Steven Wolf’s sentence of death of direct appeal.

In January 2023, Wolf was convicted of first-degree murder for a murder that occurred in South Florida in 2018. After the penalty phase, the jury unanimously recommended death.

On direct appeal, Wolf raised several claims related to both the guilt and penalty phase. One issue Wolf raised was an “allegation of prosecutorial misconduct” based on the State’s argument “that the jury should show Wolf the same mercy that he showed the victim.”

In its penalty phase opening, the State said to the jurors that when considering whether to recommend mercy to “think to yourself he asked for mercy when he was not willing to give any.” In closing, the State again addressed mercy. Referring to the fact that Wolf had been given a second chance upon being released from prison for his first murder conviction, the State said, “He had it and he threw it away and now he asks you for mercy when he was unwilling to give it.”

Based on the its precedent, the Court condemned this argument: “While the State did not directly say to the jury that it should show Wolf that same mercy Wolf showed the victim, the clear implication was that the jury should show Wolf no mercy because he showed the victim no mercy.” Nevertheless, the Court said that the impermissible comments did “not rise to such a level that a recommendation of death could not have been obtained without them.”

Given the strength of the evidence against Wolf, the gravity and weight of the aggravators, and the minimal and relatively weak mitigation, it cannot be said that the jury would not have recommended a death sentence or that the trial court would not have imposed a death sentence if the improper “same mercy” comments had not been made. Because the error was not fundamental, Wolf is not entitled to relief on this issue.

The Court affirmed Wolf’s first-degree murder conviction and sentence of death.

Justice Grosshans concurred with an opinion in which she said she agrees the Court’s opinion is consistent with precedent but that she agreed with Justice Sasso’s separate opinion that the “same mercy” argument should be addressed in a future decision.

Justice Sasso concurred specially with an opinion in which she questioned the Court’s precedent on “same mercy” arguments:

I agree that Wolf’s judgment and sentence should be affirmed. I write separately because we have characterized as “impermissible” the prosecutor’s comment that jurors should consider Wolf “asked for mercy when he was not willing to give any.” This is an accurate characterization based on this Court’s line of precedent condemning same-mercy arguments. That said, I question whether this Court should retain that line of precedent.

Justice Labarga concurred in result only without an opinion. This is consistent with his recent votes on direct appeal based on his disagreement with the Court no longer conducting proportionality review on direct appeal.

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