Unanimous First-Degree Verdicts and the CCP Aggravator: Florida Supreme Court Affirms

Introduction

In Mark H. Wilson v. State of Florida, No. SC2023-0320 (Fla. May 22, 2025), the Florida Supreme Court considered the direct appeal of Mark Howard Wilson, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the first-degree murders of two children. The victims, twelve-year-old Robert and fourteen-year-old Tayten Baker, were brutally killed in their aunt’s home in August 2020. Wilson was living on the property with his partner, Cynthia “Cindy” Guinan, and their infant daughter. After extensive investigation, law enforcement linked a blood-stained hammer and fillet knife to Wilson, secured his confession (including a taped admission wired by his mother), and presented forensic and medical evidence of the murders. The Court affirmed Wilson’s convictions and death sentences, rejecting challenges to aggravating-factor instructions, mitigation rulings, jury charges, and constitutional attacks on capital punishment.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed Wilson’s convictions for two counts of first-degree murder and related burglary offenses, and his sentences of death.
The Court held that a general verdict of “guilty of first-degree murder” permits the use of the “cold, calculated, and premeditated” (CCP) aggravating factor in the penalty phase, even if the jury briefly questioned unanimity on premeditation.
The trial court did not err in rejecting extensive mitigation based on alleged methamphetamine intoxication at the time of the killings, nor in admitting certain victim-impact testimony.
Standard jury instructions on life-without-parole, mercy, sympathy, proportionality, and jury qualification were upheld as non-error.
Florida’s death-penalty scheme survived constitutional challenges under state and federal Eighth Amendment standards.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Doty v. State, 170 So. 3d 731 (Fla. 2015) and Hall v. State, 87 So. 3d 667 (Fla. 2012): trial courts must instruct on aggravators supported by credible evidence.
Pham v. State, 70 So. 3d 485 (Fla. 2011) and Franklin v. State, 965 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 2007): CCP aggravator requires procurement of a weapon in advance, heightened premeditation, and absence of moral justification.
Lawrence v. State, 308 So. 3d 544 (Fla. 2020): Florida abandoned comparative proportionality review in capital appeals.
California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538 (1987): instructions against emotional decision-making are permissible.
Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015) (majority and concurring opinions): federal Eighth Amendment analysis of arbitrariness, evolving standards, and reliability of capital punishment.
Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 (1986): “death-qualifying” juries do not violate the Sixth Amendment.

2. Legal Reasoning

A. CCP Aggravator and Verdict Forms
The Court held that a general guilty verdict for first-degree murder—regardless of an earlier jury question about unanimity on premeditation—authorizes the CCP aggravator. The trial court correctly amended confusing verdict forms, re-instructed the jury, and the jury returned unanimous guilty verdicts. The penalty jury’s later finding of CCP (defined in the penalty‐phase instructions as “a heightened level of premeditation, demonstrated by a substantial period of reflection”) demonstrated that jurors resolved any confusion.

B. Mitigation and Methamphetamine Intoxication
Wilson’s self-serving claim of methamphetamine intoxication at the time of the murders was unsupported by contemporaneous observations of impairment, forensic toxicology, or expert opinion showing any “extreme mental or emotional disturbance” or “substantial impairment of capacity.” The trial court properly gave only slight weight to Wilson’s adult methamphetamine abuse, rejected intoxication as mitigation, and credited the State’s experts who found no clinical evidence of amphetamine-induced paranoia or selective amnesia.

C. Victim Impact Evidence
The Court upheld admission of victim-impact testimony (including references to earlier family tragedies) because the statements demonstrated the uniqueness of the victims and the resulting loss to the community, without inflaming the jury or urging retribution.

D. Jury Instructions on Life, Mercy, Sympathy, Proportionality, and Qualification
Standard Florida instructions were found adequate: life without parole was repeatedly defined; “mercy” was encompassed by the instruction that jurors need not impose death; admonitions against deciding based on pity or anger were permissible under Brown; and the State’s abandonment of comparative proportionality review in Lawrence was reaffirmed. Death-qualification of jurors was upheld under Lockhart.

3. Impact on Florida Capital Practice

Cements that a general first-degree murder verdict suffices for CCP aggravator instructions.
Reinforces high threshold for defendant-claimed intoxication mitigation without objective corroboration.
Clarifies admissibility of broader victim-impact statements that place the crime in familial context.
Affirms stability of standard jury instructions, discouraging piecemeal special charges.
Maintains Florida’s death-penalty scheme against Eighth Amendment and state-constitutional challenges.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Cold, Calculated, and Premeditated (CCP): An aggravator showing the defendant planned the killing ahead of time, procured a weapon in advance, and lacked moral justification.
General Verdict: A single “guilty of first-degree murder” verdict covers both premeditated and felony murder theories without requiring separate written findings.
Mitigating Circumstances: Any factor that supports a life sentence instead of death (e.g., mental disturbance, impaired capacity, background, intoxication). The judge weighs each on its evidentiary strength.
Victim Impact Evidence: Testimony or statements showing the victim’s individuality and the emotional, physical, or financial loss suffered by survivors, without expressing desired punishment.
Comparative Proportionality Review: A former practice where Florida courts compared death cases to ensure similar sentences in similar cases; abandoned by Lawrence.

Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Wilson v. State reaffirms key procedures in capital trials: a general guilty verdict supports CCP aggravator instructions; speculative intoxication claims require objective proof; comprehensive victim-impact statements are permitted; and standard jury instructions on life, mercy, and emotion remain valid. The decision consolidates the Court’s modern Eighth Amendment jurisprudence—upholding Florida’s narrowed class of death-eligible offenders, rejecting comparative proportionality, and affirming the constitutionality of death-qualifying juries. This ruling will guide trial courts, litigators, and capital-defense specialists in navigating aggravator instructions, mitigation presentations, and jury preparations in future capital cases.