I. The Due Process Clause requires the existence of an element of a crime to be determined 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 "functional equivalents" of elements of the offense. See id. at 494-96; Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 603-05, 609 (2002) (concluding 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) (2019). The first question presented in this case is whether, considering the operation and effect of Florida's capital sentencing scheme, the Due Process Clause requires these additional determinations to be made beyond a reasonable doubt.

II. Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments bar the imposition of the death penalty on a defendant who is over 18, but not yet 21, at the time of the charged offense.

Whether the Due Process Clause requires additional determinations under Florida's capital sentencing scheme to be made beyond a reasonable doubt