The Third District Court of Appeal in Florida has affirmed a lower court’s decision declaring Reginald Jackson intellectually disabled, a finding that legally bars the imposition of the death penalty in his pending murder case. The State of Florida had challenged the ruling, arguing the trial court relied on insufficient evidence and improperly considered factors outside the legal definition of intellectual disability. However, the appellate court found that the trial judge’s detailed findings were supported by “competent, substantial evidence.”
Reginald Jackson is charged in connection with the 2013 killings of Annette Anderson and her grandson, Tyrone Walker, in Miami-Dade County. Following the State’s announcement that it intended to seek capital punishment, Jackson moved to be declared intellectually disabled under Florida Statute 921.137 and Criminal Procedure Rule 3.203, as this status prohibits the death penalty.
After an extensive evidentiary hearing spanning six non-consecutive days in late 2019, which included testimony from numerous lay witnesses and four experts for the defense and two for the State, the trial court issued a fifteen-page order finding Jackson met the criteria. The State appealed this non-final order, asserting the trial court misread the record and focused too heavily on Jackson’s childhood evidence when assessing deficits in adaptive behavior.
Standard of Review: Deference to the Trial Court
When reviewing a trial court’s determination of intellectual disability, appellate courts adhere to a strict standard. The Third DCA reiterated that it must examine the record only to see if “competent, substantial evidence” supports the trial court’s conclusion. Crucially, the appellate panel stated it will not reweigh the evidence or second-guess the circuit court’s credibility findings concerning witnesses. This means the appellate court largely defers to the trial judge who heard all the testimony firsthand.
The Three-Prong Test for Intellectual Disability
Florida law, echoing the U.S. Supreme Court’s mandate in *Atkins v. Virginia*, prohibits executing individuals with intellectual disabilities. To qualify, a defendant must prove three elements by *clear and convincing evidence*:
1. Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning (typically an IQ score below 70).
2. Existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior.
3. Manifested during the developmental period (before age 18).
The appellate court analyzed the trial court’s findings across these three prongs.
Prong One: Subaverage Intellectual Functioning
The court found ample evidence supporting Jackson’s subaverage intellectual functioning. IQ testing conducted throughout Jackson’s life showed scores hovering near or below the 70 threshold, especially when accounting for the standard error of measurement (SEM) of ±five points inherent in IQ tests.
For example, testing at age seven showed a full-scale score of 76, but a performance score of 64. Later testing yielded scores consistent with the 70 cutoff. Even one of the State’s own experts, Dr. Brannon, scored Jackson with a full-scale IQ of 63. Furthermore, the trial court heavily weighed academic records, noting that Jackson never progressed beyond the academic level of a sixth grader, supporting the finding of a significant intellectual deficit.
Prong Three: Age of Onset
The court also upheld the finding that the condition manifested before age 18. The evidence detailed significant challenges dating back to Jackson’s childhood, including being referred to in school records as a “crack baby,” suffering multiple serious head injuries during developmental years, and being placed in individualized education plans for students considered “emotionally handicapped.” The court confirmed that the law requires the condition to be *demonstrated* before age 18, not formally *diagnosed* at that time.
Prong Two: Deficits in Adaptive Behavior
This prong proved to be the most contentious. Adaptive behavior is assessed across three domains: conceptual, social, and practical. The trial court found deficits in two of the three domains, satisfying the second prong.
In the Conceptual Domain (covering academic skills and judgment), testimony from a former special education teacher indicated Jackson struggled with multi-step instructions and reading comprehension, requiring classwork suited for much younger students. Family members corroborated his difficulties with basic tasks like telling time or running simple errands.
In the Practical Domain (covering self-care, work skills, and safety), the evidence pointed to severe limitations. Jackson had virtually no work history, struggled significantly with personal hygiene, could not manage medication schedules, and was reportedly incapable of living alone or making simple meals. While he could operate a cell phone, family testimony suggested he relied on others to manage his school supplies and financial matters throughout his life.
The Social Domain was the exception. The trial court found evidence suggesting Jackson possessed competence here, citing his cooperation during post-arrest interviews, his ability to use complex vocabulary in jail calls, and his use of tactics like blocking his caller ID. The court noted that deficiencies in just one domain are sufficient, but Jackson showed deficits in two.
The State specifically argued that the trial court focused too much on historical evidence, violating the requirement that adaptive deficits must be *current*. The appellate court disagreed, noting that the trial judge explicitly recognized that impairment must be an “ongoing issue.” After weighing the evidence of limitations against the State’s evidence of strengths (like his behavior during interrogation), the Third DCA concluded the trial court’s holistic review was supported by competent, substantial evidence.
In summary, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s order, meaning Reginald Jackson cannot be sentenced to death for the 2013 murders due to his established intellectual disability.