The Florida Supreme Court in a ruling this month asked the Legislature to review how defendants are sentenced to death to avert possible challenges to the state's death penalty law.

Whether lawmakers will discuss changes to the law when they convene in March remains unclear. Legislators thus far have avoided the politicking that normally surrounds such controversial issues, raising doubts that the momentum to make immediate changes will have developed by next year's session.

"The question is a matter of fairness and a matter of what makes sense for Florida," said Senate President Tom Lee, R-Brandon. "You never know how these issues will be received by the Legislature when the arguments are made."

The Supreme Court decision, which stems from the Dade City murder case of Alfredie Steele Jr., suggests that the high court sees problems with the way state courts determine whether murder defendants should be sentenced to death or life in prison.

In the ruling, justices recommended the Legislature re-evaluate the process by which judges make that decision.

According to legal scholars, Florida's death penalty has two basic problems:

•Judges, not juries, ultimately determine whether a defendant receives the death penalty, though judges are expected to give "great weight" to jury recommendations about what sentence to impose. That system, however, seems to conflict with the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Ring v. Arizona, which requires jurors make the decision.

• Juries in Florida need only a majority vote to decide whether an aggravating circumstance exists and to recommend a death sentence. Legal experts say Ring presents a strong case for requiring unanimity in recommending death and possibly in enumerating aggravating circumstances -- factors that provide legal justification for imposing the death penalty.

By comparison, juries must reach a unanimous decision to convict someone in a criminal case.

"I think the state death penalty statute is ripe for a constitutional challenge and a successful constitutional challenge," said Robert Batey, a professor at Stetson University College of Law.

The Ring decision spurred speculation about Florida's death penalty, but the state Supreme Court never issued a definitive ruling about how trial judges should deal with Ring.

That has left judges presiding over first-degree murder cases to guess about how best to alleviate possible appeals on the Ring issue.

Steele's case ended up on appeal because of Circuit Judge Lynn Tepper's attempt to satisfy Ring concerns.

Steele, 21, of Lacoochee, is charged with first-degree murder in the 2003 shooting death of Pasco County Sheriff's Lt. Charles "Bo" Harrison. The state is seeking the death penalty.

During pretrial hearings, Tepper said she would require jurors to fill out special verdict forms detailing their vote on aggravating factors, in the event Steele was convicted of first-degree murder.

Prosecutors appealed Tepper's order, arguing that the state's death penalty statute does not require special verdict forms.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal referred the case to the Florida Supreme Court because of its public importance. The court struck down Tepper's order requiring special verdict forms but recommended legislative action on Florida's death penalty statute.

The ruling, however, does not obligate legislators to do anything about the court's concerns.

Sen. Rod Smith, a Gainesville Democrat who sits on the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, said he expects any change in the statute would be, at most, incremental.

"I would be surprised if we moved to do anything dramatic in death penalty litigation," said Smith, a former state attorney who is running for governor. "In death penalty cases, every time you make a change, as incremental as it may seem, you open up so many cases that have already been there so long.

"So I guess my answer is that I know I'm not contemplating any immediate action."

Rep. Dennis Baxley, an Ocala Republican who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, said he has spoken with other House members about the Steele ruling.

"It's still early on in the response, but the buzz has started that we may need to do some polishing on [the death penalty statute]," he said.

Precedent exists for the Legislature passing laws in response to a Supreme Court ruling.

In October 1997, the court asked lawmakers to consider lethal injection as an alternative to avert possible constitutional questions about the electric chair's use in executions. The Legislature approved lethal injection as an alternate means of execution in January 2000.

Still, what legislators might do in response to the latest court request remains anyone's guess.

"It's hard to predict what a majority of the Legislature will do," said Jon Mills, a former speaker of the House who is a professor of law at the University of Florida.

The Steele decision "may be a warning shot, or it may just be a policy statement. In either case, the Legislature doesn't have to do anything."

WHAT HAPPENED

Jan. 9, 2004: Pasco-Pinellas Circuit Judge Lynn Tepper ordered that jurors would fill out special verdict forms during the penalty phase of Alfredie Steele Jr.'s trial, should he be convicted of first-degree murder. The forms were intended to detail jurors' votes on the aggravators they might have cited as justification for a death sentence. Prosecutors appealed the ruling to the 2nd District Court of Appeal, which referred the question to the Florida Supreme Court.

Oct. 12: The high court struck down the use of special verdict forms but asked the Legislature to review the process by which trial judges impose the death penalty, hoping to avert possible constitutional challenges.

WHAT'S NEXT

So far, legislators seem undecided about whether they will review Florida's death penalty law when they convene in March. Lawmakers are not required to act, but legal scholars say they would be well advised to shore up the state's death penalty statute in light of a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.