Florida Executes Baby Murderer After 30 Years

As Florida carried out the execution of convicted baby killer Andrew Richard Lukehart, his final words and the crime behind them reignited a fierce debate over justice, mercy, and how far a civilized society should go to punish evil.

Story Snapshot

A Florida jury convicted Andrew Richard Lukehart of murdering his girlfriend’s 5‑month‑old baby, and he was sentenced to death under state law.
Nearly 30 years later, Florida officials set and carried out his execution after repeated appeals failed.
Anti–death penalty activists tried to halt the punishment, even in the face of horrific facts about the child’s death.
The case highlights a justice system that moved slowly but ultimately affirmed the jury’s verdict and sentence.

A brutal crime that shocked Jacksonville

Reports from the time show that in 1996, Jacksonville resident Andrew Richard Lukehart was charged with first‑degree murder in the death of his former girlfriend’s 5‑month‑old baby, Gabrielle Hanshaw.^[1]^[5] Coverage from local television archives records the jury returning a guilty verdict for first‑degree murder and recommending the death penalty by a 9‑to‑3 vote.^[1] A Florida trial judge then formally sentenced Lukehart to death, finding the murder of the infant especially heinous and cruel under state law.^[4]^[5]

Florida Supreme Court records recount that prosecutors argued Lukehart violently killed the baby while he was already on felony probation, a factor the court later treated as an aggravating circumstance.^[4] Justices reviewing the case described the victim as a five‑month‑old child and upheld the trial court’s findings that the crime warranted the state’s harshest punishment.^[5] For many Floridians, the combination of a defenseless infant, prior criminal history, and extreme violence made the case a clear example of why the death penalty exists.^[4]^[5]

Decades of appeals and a final death warrant

After the original conviction, Lukehart’s case moved through the familiar, lengthy death‑penalty appeals process, including direct review by the Florida Supreme Court and later post‑conviction challenges.^[5] Court documents show that his lawyers attacked various aspects of the trial and sentencing, but appellate judges consistently rejected those claims and reaffirmed both the guilty verdict and the sentence of death.^[4]^[5] That long timeline meant the victim’s family waited nearly three decades for the punishment the jury had recommended in the 1990s.^[3]^[5]

As the legal clock neared its end, Florida’s governor signed a formal death warrant setting Lukehart’s execution for 6 p.m. on June 2 at Florida State Prison.^[2]^[3] The warrant order, reflected in state court records, triggered a final round of emergency motions that again failed to convince courts to intervene.^[3]^[5] By the time the sentence was carried out, Lukehart was in his early fifties, far removed in age from the 24‑year‑old man who committed the crime, but still held legally responsible for the murder of the child.^[3]^[5]

Last‑minute activism versus the record of the case

Opponents of capital punishment seized on the warrant as a rallying point, urging Floridians to call the governor’s office and demand clemency.^[1]^[2] Activist groups framed the execution as another example of what they call a broken death‑penalty system and asked that Lukehart’s sentence be commuted to life without parole.^[2] Their appeals focused on moral objections to capital punishment itself rather than offering new evidence that would undercut the jury’s determination of guilt.^[1]^[2]

The death sentence of Andrew Richard Lukehart has been carried out in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Death was pronounced at 6:19PM local time. The execution occurred without incident.

— Palmetto Americanist (@thepalmettoa1) June 2, 2026

Florida Supreme Court summaries and older trial records instead emphasize the severity of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim, and Lukehart’s status on felony probation at the time of the killing.^[4]^[5] Those facts gave elected officials and courts a clear statutory basis to view the case as falling squarely within the narrow class of murders the law reserves for capital punishment.^[4]^[5] While activists highlighted concerns about the broader system, the documented record in this case shows repeated judicial review that left the underlying verdict and sentence intact.^[4]^[5]