Title: Marshall Lee Gore v. State of Florida

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC07-678 
____________ 
 
MARSHALL LEE GORE,  
Appellant, 
 
vs. 
 
STATE OF FLORIDA,  
Appellee. 
 
[April 8, 2010] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
Marshall Lee Gore, a prisoner under sentence of death, appeals the circuit 
court‘s order denying his motion for postconviction DNA testing, which was filed 
pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853.  Because the order concerns 
postconviction relief from a sentence of death, this Court has jurisdiction of the 
appeal under article V, section 3(b)(1), of the Florida Constitution. 
FACTS 
The facts of the case are set forth in this Court‘s 1992 opinion affirming 
Gore‘s convictions and sentence: 
Susan Roark was last seen alive on January 30, 1988, in 
Cleveland, Tennessee, in the company of Marshall Lee Gore.  Gore 
 
- 2 - 
had planned to travel to Florida with a friend from Cleveland.  While 
waiting for his friend at a convenience store, Gore struck up a 
conversation with Roark.  Gore then entered Roark‘s car, a black 
Mustang, and they drove away. 
Gore accompanied Roark to a party at the home of a friend of 
hers.  Roark had planned to spend the night at her friend‘s home. 
Sometime between 11:30 and 12:00, Roark left to drive Gore home. 
She never returned.  The following day Roark‘s grandmother re-
ported her missing.  She had been expected home by 7 a.m. that 
morning. 
Gore arrived in Tampa on January 31, driving a black Mustang. 
He convinced a friend to help him pawn several items of jewelry later 
identified as belonging to Roark.  Gore then proceeded to Miami, 
where police subsequently recovered Roark‘s Mustang after it was 
abandoned in a two-car accident.  Gore‘s fingerprint was found in the 
car, as well as a traffic ticket which had been issued to him while he 
was in Miami. 
On April 2, 1988, the skeletonized remains of Roark‘s body 
were discovered in Columbia County, Florida.  The naked body was 
found in a wooded area which had been used as an unauthorized 
dumping ground for household garbage and refuse.  Expert testimony 
established that the body was placed in its location either at the time 
of death or within two hours of death.  The body could have been 
there anywhere from two weeks to six months prior to discovery.  The 
forensic pathologist who testified for the State concluded that the 
cause of death was a homicide, given the situation in which the body 
was found and the fact that the neck area of the body was completely 
missing.  The pathologist explained that this was probably due to 
some injury to the neck, such as a stab wound or strangulation trauma, 
which provided a favorable environment for insects to begin the 
deterioration process. 
Gore v. State, 599 So. 2d 978, 980 (Fla. 1992).  In Gore‘s postconviction case, this 
Court summarized the following additional relevant facts: 
In addition to this evidence, the State introduced the testimony 
of two other witnesses.  Specifically, Lisa Ingram testified that she 
―was riding in a car with Gore on February 19 when she saw a 
woman‘s purse in the back seat.  She testified that Gore stated that the 
 
- 3 - 
purse belonged to ‗a girl that he had killed last night.‘ ‖  [Gore, 599 
So. 2d] at 983.  We concluded on appeal that ―this testimony was 
admissible as an admission with regard to the Roark homicide.‖  Id. 
Further, the State presented the collateral crime testimony of another 
victim, Tina Corolis: 
The testimony of Tina Corolis was admitted as evidence 
of a collateral crime.  Corolis was a casual acquaintance 
of Gore‘s, whom she knew as ―Tony.‖  In March of 
1988, Gore called Corolis at her home and told her that 
his car had broken down and he needed a ride to it.  After 
they had driven around for several hours, Gore revealed a 
knife, gained control of the car, and drove to a partially 
wooded dumping area off a dirt road.  He put the knife to 
Corolis‘ stomach, forced her to undress, and raped her. 
He then dragged her out of the car, punched her face 
against a rock, strangled her, and stabbed her in the neck, 
arms, legs, and buttocks.  Shortly thereafter Gore pawned 
several items of Corolis‘ jewelry and then proceeded to 
Kentucky in her car. 
Id.  We concluded on direct appeal that the ―cumulative effect of the 
numerous similarities between the two crimes is the establishment of a 
unique modus operandi which points to Gore as the perpetrator of the 
Roark homicide.‖  Id. at 984.  The jury found Gore guilty of first-
degree murder, kidnapping, and robbery.  See id. at 980. 
The jury recommended a sentence of death by a vote of eleven 
to one, and the trial court followed this recommendation after finding 
the following aggravating circumstances: (1) Gore had previously 
been convicted of other violent felonies; (2) the murder was 
committed while Gore was engaged in a kidnapping; (3) the murder 
was committed for financial gain; and (4) the murder was cold, 
calculated, and premeditated.  See id. at 986.  The judge concluded 
that Gore‘s poor childhood and antisocial personality were insufficient 
mitigation to outweigh the aggravating circumstances.  See id. 
Gore v. State, 846 So. 2d 461, 464-65 (Fla. 2003).  This Court affirmed Gore‘s 
conviction and sentence on direct appeal.  Gore v. State, 599 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 
1992).  The Court also affirmed the trial court‘s order denying Gore‘s motion for 
 
- 4 - 
postconviction relief as well as Gore‘s habeas corpus petition filed with this Court.  
Gore v. State, 846 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2003). 
Gore subsequently filed a pro se motion entitled ―Innocent Defendant‘s 
Motion for Postconviction DNA Testing Pursuant to F.R.C.P. Rule 3.853.‖  In his 
motion, Gore sought DNA testing of a variety of items collected in connection 
with the murder investigation.  Additionally, Gore appeared to request DNA 
analysis of a pair of bloody pants collected from the investigation of another case 
in which Gore was convicted of murder—the Novick case.1  Gore also sought to 
have DNA samples collected from Tina Corolis and David Restrepo.2 
 
The trial court summarily denied Gore‘s motion as facially insufficient, 
finding as follows: 
 
The Defendant seeks to have DNA tests run on evidence that 
was collected near the victim.  It should be noted that the victim was 
buried under a layer of leaves at an unauthorized trash dump in a rural 
part of Columbia County.  The Defendant alleges, that because there 
is no physical evidence that ties him to the victim, crime scene, or 
                                          
 
 
1.  In a separate case, Gore was also convicted of the March 1988 first-
degree murder and armed robbery of Robyn Novick in Dade County and sentenced 
to death.  The convictions and death sentence were affirmed on appeal.  See Gore 
v. State, 784 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 2001).  We also affirmed the denial of postconviction 
relief.  Gore v. State, 24 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2009). 
 
 
2.  David Restrepo was a witness in the Novick murder case.  He testified 
that Gore arrived at his home, driving a Corvette (that was later determined to 
belong to Novick).  While Restrepo was riding in Novick‘s vehicle with Gore, 
Gore lost control of the vehicle, wrecked it, and abandoned it.  Gore, 784 So. 2d at 
423-24. 
 
- 5 - 
county, DNA tests run on the evidence cited will reveal that he is 
innocent. 
 
The Defendant is incorrect in this assertion.  The identity of the 
perpetrator of this crime is, was, and can be established without any 
direct physical evidence.  Some of the means of identifying the 
Defendant are: the Defendant was the last person seen with the victim, 
the Defendant was in possession of the victims [sic] car (in which he 
was the last person seen with the victim), and the Defendant pawned 
personal items of the victims.  
 
Thus, the statutory requirement of a question of identity has not 
been met, and the Rule 3.853 motion is facially insufficient. 
State v. Gore, No. 88-607-CF at 1 (Fla. 3d Cir. order dated July 11, 2006).  Gore 
now asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion on the grounds that it 
was facially invalid.  As explained below, we affirm the trial court‘s denial of 
Gore‘s motion for postconviction DNA testing. 
ANALYSIS 
Gore‘s Request to Conduct DNA Testing on Items Collected 
During the Investigation of This Case 
Gore seeks to have DNA testing conducted on items collected during the 
investigation of this case, asserting that the items were collected from either the 
vicinity of the victim‘s body or from the victim‘s vehicle, and contends that the 
trial court erred in denying his motion as facially insufficient. 
The clear requirement of the provisions of section 3.853 is that  
a movant, in pleading the requirements of rule 3.853, must lay out 
with specificity how the DNA testing of each item requested to be 
tested would give rise to a reasonable probability of acquittal or a 
lesser sentence.  In order for the trial court to make the required 
findings, the movant must demonstrate the nexus between the 
 
- 6 - 
potential results of DNA testing on each piece of evidence and the 
issues in the case. 
Hitchcock v. State, 866 So. 2d 23, 27 (Fla. 2004).  This Court has previously 
explained that ―[i]t is the defendant‘s burden to explain, with reference to specific 
facts about the crime and the items requested to be tested, how the DNA testing 
will exonerate the defendant of the crime or will mitigate the defendant‘s 
sentence.‖  Lott v. State, 931 So. 2d 807, 820 (Fla. 2006) (emphasis added) 
(quoting Robinson v. State, 865 So. 2d 1259, 1265 (Fla. 2004)).  ―The burden is on 
the movant to ‗demonstrate the nexus between the potential results of DNA testing 
on each piece of evidence and the issues in the case.‘ ‖  Van Poyck v. State, 908 
So. 2d 326, 329 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Hitchcock, 866 So. 2d at 27).  This Court has 
rejected claims where the defendant was ―merely speculating‖ and has ―repeatedly 
cautioned that ‗[r]ule 3.853 is not intended to be a fishing expedition.‘ ‖  Lott, 931 
So. 2d at 820-21 (quoting Cole v. State, 895 So. 2d 398, 403 (Fla. 2004)).  Gore 
has not met his burden and, accordingly, we affirm the trial court‘s denial of DNA 
testing on the items collected during the investigation of this case.  
Gore seeks DNA testing of the following items: (1) earrings found near the 
victim; (2) a shoe string found on the victim‘s wrists; (3) socks; (4) a pink shirt; (5) 
white bikini panties; (6) a panty shield found in two pieces; (7) an earring taken 
from the victim‘s vehicle; (8) a multicolored pillow taken from the victim‘s 
vehicle; (9) a grey shirt found in a brown box; (10) multi-colored shorts found in a 
 
- 7 - 
brown box; (11) a blood sample taken from the map light of the victim‘s vehicle; 
(12) Fruit of the Loom underwear and one pair of socks; (13) a curling iron and 
hair brush belonging to the victim; (14) debris from the underwear and socks; (15) 
debris from the panties and panty shield; (16) contact lenses found near the body of 
the victim; (17) an empty Marlboro brand cigarette package; (18) three empty beer 
bottles; (19) fingernails collected near the victim‘s body; and (20) strands of hair 
found in the victim‘s right hand. 
Although Gore was specific as to the list of the items that he requests be 
tested, a closer examination shows that DNA testing of the items would not 
exonerate him of the murder.  Some of the items were found at the crime scene, but 
not in close proximity to the body, which was located in a wooded area used as an 
unauthorized dumping ground for household garbage and refuse.  This area was 
near a road that, according to trial testimony, was strewn with household refuse 
from beginning to end.  For example, Gore requests DNA testing on a Marlboro 
brand cigarette package, which was found approximately fifty yards from the body.  
He also requests DNA testing on ―Fruit of the Loom underwear,‖ a pair of socks, 
and debris from the underwear and socks—these items were located near the 
entrance to the road, over one hundred yards away from the body.     
From a review of the trial record, other items that Gore requests be tested 
appear to have been located in closer proximity to the body.  These items include 
 
- 8 - 
earrings that were found underneath the victim‘s head, socks, a pink shirt, panties, 
contact lenses, empty beer bottles, fingernails, a panty shield found in two pieces, 
and debris collected from the panties and panty shield.  However, Gore has not 
carried his ―burden to explain, with reference to specific facts about the crime and 
the items requested to be tested, how the DNA testing will exonerate the defendant 
of the crime or will mitigate the defendant‘s sentence.‖  Lott, 931 So. 2d at 820 
(emphasis added) (quoting Robinson, 865 So. 2d at 1265).  Further, this area was 
used as an unauthorized dumping ground for household garbage and refuse and, 
because the body was not found until weeks or months after the murder, the chance 
of contamination is increased.  
Another category of items at the crime scene—strands of hair found in the 
victim‘s right hand and a shoe string found knotted around the victim‘s left wrist—
could likely have been related to the murder but were never used to inculpate Gore 
and Gore has not shown how the DNA testing of these items could be used to 
exonerate him of the murder. 
Gore also seeks to have DNA testing performed on items found in the 
victim‘s vehicle.  These items are earrings, a multicolored pillow, a shirt, shorts, 
and a ―blood sample‖ from the map light of the vehicle.  The shirt had blood on the 
left sleeve that was consistent with Gore‘s blood type and enzyme type—a type 
that was found in approximately sixteen percent of the population.  The shorts and 
 
- 9 - 
map light tested positive for presumptive presence of blood, but the analyst 
testifying at trial was not able to determine more than that. 
Finally, two of the items in Gore‘s list are completely unconnected to the 
crime scene or the victim‘s vehicle—a curling iron and hair brush belonging to the 
victim.  These items were provided to the investigators in this case by Tennessee 
police to be used as a standard sample of the victim‘s hair for comparison 
purposes.3  It is not clear whether Gore is requesting DNA testing on these items in 
order to provide a comparison sample of the victim‘s DNA or whether Gore 
believes that these items were located at the crime scene or in the victim‘s vehicle.  
Gore asserts that because the State collected all of the above items at the 
time of the murder investigation, they must have some relevance to the murder.  
However, none of the items were ever used by the State to inculpate Gore, with the 
exception of the shirt found in the victim‘s vehicle that had blood matching Gore‘s 
blood type and enzyme type.  Importantly, there is absolutely no indication that 
any of the items could be used to exonerate Gore.  Gore asserts that the testing of 
the items will serve to establish that someone other than Gore committed the 
murder by either establishing the true identity of the actual killer or exclude Gore 
                                          
 
 
3.    The hair analyst who testified at trial asserted that she decided that the 
hairs were too damaged to be used as a hair standard for the victim.  Accordingly, 
the analyst was not able to rule out the victim as the source of some of the hairs 
found at the scene. 
 
- 10 - 
as the perpetrator of the murder.  Even if the DNA analysis indicates a source other 
than the victim or Gore, ―there is no reasonable probability that [he] would have 
been acquitted or received a life sentence,‖ Tompkins v. State, 872 So. 2d 230, 243 
(Fla. 2003), as the DNA very likely could have come from someone other than the 
murderer given the location of the items in either a trash dump or in the victim‘s 
vehicle.  See Lott, 931 So. 2d at 820-21. 
Gore asserted in his motion filed with the trial court that DNA testing will 
allow the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to ―compare those profiles to 
the profiles of known perverts.‖  This is exactly the sort of speculation and fishing 
expedition for which rule 3.853 was not intended.  See Lott, 931 So. 2d at 820-21. 
Further, the absence of Gore‘s DNA on the listed items collected from the 
crime scene or the victim‘s vehicle would not exonerate him or mitigate his 
sentence because ―such results would not prove that [he] was neither the 
perpetrator nor present at the crime scene.‖  Overton v. State, 976 So. 2d 536, 570 
(Fla. 2007).  Moreover, the evidence presented at trial clearly connected Gore to 
the murder.  He was the person last seen with the victim by any credible witness 
testifying at trial.  Gore, 599 So. 2d at 980, 984.  Within twenty-four hours of the 
victim‘s disappearance, Gore was seen in Florida in possession of her vehicle.  See 
id.  He received a traffic ticket while driving the victim‘s vehicle in Florida, and 
his fingerprints were found in the victim‘s vehicle, which was abandoned after an 
 
- 11 - 
accident.  Id.  He also had someone pawn the victim‘s jewelry.  Id.  Finally, he 
admitted to Lisa Ingram that a purse in the victim‘s vehicle belonged to a girl he 
had killed ―last night or a few nights ago.‖  Id. at 983.   
In sum, Gore has not carried his burden to ―explain, with reference to 
specific facts about the crime and the items requested to be tested, how the DNA 
testing will exonerate‖ him or mitigate his sentence in this case.  See Lott, 931 So. 
2d at 820 (quoting Robinson, 865 So. 2d at 1265).  Under the facts of this case, we 
conclude that he cannot carry this burden with respect to these items. 
Gore‘s Request to DNA Test an Item Collected During the Novick Case 
Investigation and to Have DNA Samples Collected from Restrepo and Corolis 
Gore also claims that he is entitled to have an item from another crime scene 
investigation tested for DNA and that he is entitled to have the court order DNA 
samples to be collected from Restrepo and Corolis so that he may collaterally 
attack Corolis‘s testimony in the instant case.  Specifically, he contends that 
Corolis‘s DNA will be found on a pair of bloody pants taken from the Novick 
vehicle during the investigation of the Novick murder case.4  Since Corolis 
testified in the instant case that she had met Gore only briefly prior to him 
assaulting her and that she did not know Novick, Gore asserts that the presence of 
                                          
 
 
4.  Gore does not assert that he is seeking access to DNA samples previously 
collected from Restrepo and Corolis in any of his three cases.  Rather, he seeks to 
have the court order the collection of DNA samples from these two individuals. 
 
- 12 - 
her DNA on the pants would demonstrate that her testimony in this regard was 
false.  As to Restrepo, Gore has not made an argument for how obtaining 
Restrepo‘s DNA would allow Gore to attack his conviction in the instant case.5   
 
Gore claims that the collection of this DNA evidence would allow him to 
―attack‖ his conviction in all three cases by undermining Corolis‘s testimony.  
Without deciding whether Gore would even be entitled to testing of these items 
under the rule, we conclude that he cannot demonstrate how the DNA testing he 
requests would exonerate him in this case or mitigate his sentence in this case.   
CONCLUSION 
For all of these reasons, we affirm the circuit court‘s order denying Gore‘s 
rule 3.853 motion for DNA testing. 
It is so ordered. 
QUINCE, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, 
and PERRY, JJ., concur. 
 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
 
An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Columbia County,  
E. Vernon Douglas, Judge – Case No. 88-607CF 
 
                                          
 
 
5.  In fact, since Restrepo was in Novick‘s vehicle with Gore and they were 
both injured during the crash, one could expect to find his blood on an item 
recovered from the vehicle after the crash. 
 
- 13 - 
Frank J. Tassone, Jr., and Rick A. Sichta of Tassone and Sichta, LLC., 
Jacksonville, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellant 
 
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Carolyn M. Snurkowski, Assistant Attorney 
General, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
for Appellee