Gudinas v. State

Defendant, who was convicted of sexual assault and murder of another individual, argued newly discovered evidence of his brain impairment and mental illness exempted him from execution under the Eighth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed that the new evaluation by the neuropsychologist regarding defendant’s “brain impairment” constituted newly discovered evidence. The court also held that the Florida Constitution’s conformity clause prevented it from interpreting Florida’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to exempt individuals from execution whose mental or cognitive issues did not rise to the level of intellectual disability, or whose chronological age was over 18 years at the time of their capital crimes. Under the conformity clause, the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment was both the floor and ceiling for protection from cruel and unusual punishment in Florida. The court also rejected the defendant’s claim that the conformity clause was unconstitutional because it could have been raised in a prior proceeding and thus was procedurally barred.