Case Title: Roman v. State

Citation: 528 So. 2d 1169

Docket Number: 72159

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 1988-05-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
528 So. 2d 1169 (1988)
Ernest Lee ROMAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 72159.

Supreme Court of Florida.
May 19, 1988.
Rehearing Denied August 23, 1988.
Larry Helm Spalding, Capital Collateral Representative and Judith J. Dougherty, Staff Atty., Office of the Capital Collateral Representative, Tallahassee, and Mark E. Olive, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Margene A. Roper, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
SHAW, Justice.
Ernest Lee Roman, under sentence of death and execution warrant, appeals the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and stay of execution. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Having granted a stay of execution on March 31, 1988, we hereby vacate the conviction and sentence of death and remand for a new trial.
This Court affirmed Roman's conviction and sentence of death for the first-degree murder of two-year-old Tasha Marie Smith. Roman v. State, 475 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1090, 106 S. Ct. 1480, 89 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1986).[*] Pursuant to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 3.850, Roman filed with the trial court an emergency motion to vacate judgment and sentence with special request for leave to amend, motion for stay of execution, and request for continuance of evidentiary hearing in which he presented the following claims for relief:
The court found Roman's claims either facially insufficient, procedurally barred, or refuted by the record, and denied all relief. Roman appeals the denial, rearguing the claims raised below. We find dispositive his claim that the state failed to disclose exculpatory evidence.
Roman introduced expert testimony that he does not know right from wrong when intoxicated. Thus, a primary issue at trial was whether or not Roman was drunk at the time of the offense. The state presented seven witnesses who testified that Roman was not drunk during the evening of March 13, 1981 or the early morning hours of March 14, 1981. The defense presented three witnesses who testified to the contrary. Arthur Reese testified for the state that Roman did not appear intoxicated at any time on the evening of March 13, or in the early morning hours of March 14, when he returned to the trailer, which he shared with Reese. Unknown to Roman at the time of trial or appeal was the fact that Reese had given the following contrary account to the police on March 15:
Reese's trial testimony was inconsistent with the March 15 statement and the following additional undisclosed statement which he gave to the police on March 14:
The state concedes that its failure to disclose these statements was a discovery violation, but argues that the nondisclosure was harmless. The state claims that the defense impeached Reese's credibility with a prior inconsistent statement, and that further impeachment with the undisclosed statement would not have changed the trial's result. Although the defense impeached Reese, the state successfully rehabilitated the witness on redirect examination. Further, Reese's undisclosed statements were important not only for impeachment purposes, but for content as well. Given this trial's circumstantial nature, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the state's failure to disclose Reese's prior statement did not contribute to the conviction. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).
Accordingly, we vacate Roman's conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of death, thereby rendering moot the remaining claims. We remand to the trial court for a new trial.
It is so ordered.
McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, BARKETT and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
GRIMES, J., concurs with an opinion, in which OVERTON, J., concurs.
GRIMES, Justice, concurring.
If Reese were just one of seven witnesses who testified that at some time that night Roman was not drunk, a reversal of the conviction would not be indicated. However, Reese was the only witness to give testimony concerning Roman's condition between midnight and 3:00 a.m., which was the time period during which the crime was committed.
Reese testified at the trial that Roman was sober all night. However, in his transcribed statement which the state concedes was not furnished to the defense, Reese said that Roman was staggering drunk at 1:45 a.m. Given the fact that there was expert testimony that Roman would have been insane if he were drunk, the inability to impeach Reese with his prior statement becomes significant. Hence, I concur that a new trial is required.
OVERTON, J., concurs.
[*]  Prior to our affirmance, we denied Roman's petition for habeas corpus relief requesting a hearing regarding his mental health. Roman v. State, 469 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 1985).