Whether the Due Process Clause and right to a jury trial require additional determinations under Florida's capital sentencing scheme to be made beyond a reasonable doubt

QUESTION PRESENTED Under the Due Process Clause and pursuant to the right to a trial by jury, the determination of the existence of an element of a crime must be made beyond a reasonable doubt. See Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 476-85, 490, 494 n.19 (2000). The same burden applies to determinations of “functional equivalents” of elements of the offense. See id. at 494-96. In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 603-05, 609 (2002), this Court concluded that the determination as to whether one or more aggravating circumstances existed was the functional equivalent of an element under Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme. Under Florida’s capital sentencing scheme, in addition to finding at least one aggravating factor exists, the factfinder must make additional determinations before a capital sentence can be imposed: (1) whether “sufficient aggravating factors exist,” and (2) whether “aggravating factors exist which outweigh the mitigating circumstances.” See Fla. Stat. § 921.141(2) (2018). The question presented in this case is whether, considering the operation and effect of Florida’s capital sentencing scheme, the Due Process Clause and right to a jury trial require these additional determinations to be made beyond a reasonable doubt. ‘ STATEMENT OF