Opinion ID: 1912218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: failure to admit pardo's former testimony in both guilt and penalty phase

Text: We next address Garcia's claim that the trial court erred in excluding the prior sworn testimony of Pardo in both the guilt and the penalty phase. Before Garcia's trial, Pardo invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and stated that he would not testify at Garcia's trial. In the guilt phase of Garcia's trial, the trial court did not permit Garcia to introduce Pardo's testimony from Pardo's prior trial [11] in which Pardo took the stand against the advice of his attorney. At that trial, Pardo testified that he alone committed the murders and he specifically testified that Garcia was not involved with the murders. In particular, Pardo stated: Q: What about Rolando Garcia? A: Rolando Garcia is related to my wife. I've known him since I've been married, 12 years. Rolando Garcia lived at my brother-in-law's house, my house. He had nowhere to go. We took him in. He was a run around boy, always been a run around boy for everybody else because he might have an IQ of two, but he's a good person, he's a good person. Q: Did he have anything to do with any of these murders? A: He would have gone crazy if he had anything to do with any of these murders. This is the job of a soldier, which is what I am. This is my mission. Q: Why did you save these articles that are incriminatory, but underline them and keep them in your house? A: I was proud of what I was doing. That was my mission in life .... I cut them out, I highlighted them and I put them in plastics. I wanted people to know what I had done and what I had contributed for your children and my children. Garcia urges that Pardo's former sworn testimony was admissible under section 90.804(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), which provides an exception to the hearsay rule, when the declarant is unavailable, for: (a) Former testimony.Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding ... if the party against whom the testimony is now offered ... had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination. The trial court denied the admission of the evidence. However, after reviewing the recorded sworn testimony from the prior trial, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the evidence. [12] Because Garcia was not tried with Pardo, the State did not have the identical motive in cross-examining Pardo as it would have had if the State tried Pardo and Garcia together. Nonetheless, section 90.804(2)(a) does not require an identical motive but only a similar motive. In this case, the State's cross-examination of Pardo at his own trial reveals that the State had substantial doubts about the credibility and reliability of Pardo's testimony, including the testimony about Garcia's lack of involvement, and that the State subjected Pardo to rigorous cross-examination on these subjects. Thus, the State had a similar motive in cross-examining Pardo, which was to discredit Pardo's testimony and show it to be not worthy of belief. For example, during the State's cross-examination of Pardo, the following colloquy ensued: Q: Rolando Garcia wasn't with you? A: He wasn't in any murder. Q: Rolando Garcia wasn't holding the second gun as you were holding the first gun? A: No. Q: And you each would shoot A: You know that's not true. Q: And you each would shoot the second victim and cross fire on both of them? A: Rolando Garcia, the only time Rolando Garcia found out what I was doing, the last murder, if that's what you want to call it, when I had to call Rolando Garcia I had no choice. When I shot the two women in the apartment, the gun got jammed on me. After I had shot the lady in the chest, she fell down, if you want to call her a lady, she fell down, the gun got jammed. That's why I struck her over the head with the gun and silencer assembly. When I finished shooting her Q: Did you tell us that was the first time Rolando Garcia took your bloody car to get it covered? A: Rolando Garcia was living in my house. I told him to take it to De Colores to have it reupholstered. He said what happened here. I said, What, you writing a book? He left it at that. He respects me a lot, always admired me. He don't really question too many things. I don't go bragging too much to Rolando Garcia because he's not wrapped too tight. Importantly, the State also cross-examined Pardo about his relationship to Ribera, revealing that Ribera's knowledge about the crime may have come from what Pardo told him and the possibility that the statements Ribera attributed to Garcia were a fabrication by Ribera: Q: Just bragged a lot to Carlo Ribera? A: He's more beneficial than Rolando Garcia. Q: You'll brag to Carlo while you won't to Rolando? A: I told Rolly certain things, but not about the killings, no. Thus, in this case the State had the opportunity to and did in fact cross-examine Pardo on the reliability and credibility of his version of the events. Accordingly, the State had a similar motive that fulfills the purpose of the former testimony hearsay exception. Moreover, the failure to allow the jury to hear this testimony deprived the jury of important additional evidence that could have been critical to assessing Garcia's guilt. Indeed, where Garcia's alleged involvement in the crimes hangs on the testimony of one individualRiberathe jury was entitled to consider the testimony of the codefendant Pardo, who took the stand in his own trial and specifically testified that Garcia was not involved in these murders. In this case, to prevent the jury from hearing the prior recorded testimony of Pardo, which the State subjected to cross-examination, is to apply the hearsay rule mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). For all these reasons, the exclusion of Pardo's prior sworn testimony constituted error, which, like the limitation on the cross-examination of Ribera, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, Pardo's testimony would have been independently admissible during the penalty phase, in which Garcia again attempted to introduce Pardo's testimony from Pardo's own trial in which he exonerated Garcia. The trial court again denied that request, apparently for the same reasons it denied Garcia's request in the guilt phase. We conclude that the trial court also erred in excluding Pardo's testimony from the penalty phase. Different considerations govern the presentation of evidence in the penalty phase of a death case. In Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95, 97, 99 S.Ct. 2150, 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the exclusion of exculpatory hearsay evidence denied the defendant a fair trial as to punishment. In Green, the defendant and codefendant were indicted together, tried separately, and both were sentenced to death. See id. at 95, 99 S.Ct. 2150. During the penalty phase, the defendant attempted to introduce the testimony of a witness who had testified at the codefendant's trial. See id. at 96, 99 S.Ct. 2150. According to the witness, the codefendant had confided that he had killed the victim after ordering the defendant to run an errand. See id. The trial court refused to allow introduction of this evidence, finding that the witness's testimony constituted hearsay that was inadmissible under Georgia law. See id. On review, the Supreme Court ruled: Regardless of whether the proffered testimony comes within Georgia's hearsay rule, under the facts of this case its exclusion constituted a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The excluded testimony was highly relevant to a critical issue in the punishment phase of the trial, see Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604-605, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978) (plurality opinion); id., at 613-616, 98 S.Ct. 2954 (opinion of BLACKMUN, J.), and substantial reasons existed to assume its reliability. Moore made his statement spontaneously to a close friend. The evidence corroborating the confession was ample, and indeed sufficient to procure a conviction of Moore and a capital sentence. The statement was against interest, and there was no reason to believe that Moore had any ulterior motive in making it. Perhaps most important, the State considered the testimony sufficiently reliable to use it against Moore, and to base a sentence of death upon it. In these unique circumstances, the hearsay rule may not be applied mechanistically to defeat the ends of justice. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). Because the exclusion of Pasby's testimony denied petitioner a fair trial on the issue of punishment, the sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Id. at 97, 99 S.Ct. 2150 (footnotes omitted). In addition to Green, which is based upon due process considerations, section 921.141(1), Florida Statutes (1997), provides: [E]vidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to the nature of the crime and the character of the defendant and shall include matters relating to any of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances enumerated in subsections (5) and (6). Any such evidence which the court deems to have probative value may be received, regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence, provided the defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statements. This Court has explained that [t]his rule applies to the State as well as to defendants. Blackwood v. State, 777 So.2d 399, 411-12 (Fla.2000). Thus, the fact that the trial court denied the admission of this evidence simply because it constituted hearsay was erroneous. Garcia could have used Pardo's testimony to show his minor participation, section 921.141(6)(d), Florida Statutes, or that he was acting under the substantial domination of Pardo, section 921.141(6)(e), Florida Statutes, or both. Accordingly, the question presented here is whether the State was accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any hearsay statement. This Court discussed this issue in Lawrence v. State, 691 So.2d 1068, 1073 (Fla.1997): On the basis of the record, we cannot conclude that Lawrence did not have a fair opportunity to rebut Gardner's testimony. Defense counsel cross-examined Gardner at the original trial. Lawrence could have offered the cross-examination during the instant sentencing proceeding but did not. Nor did he proffer any other rebuttal to the trial court. We therefore reject Lawrence's contention that the admission of Gardner's testimony requires that his death sentence be vacated. We conclude that the State in this case, like the defendant in Lawrence, had a fair opportunity to rebut the issue of Garcia's involvement and whether Garcia was less involved than Pardo. For example, the State had the opportunity to rebut and did rebut any claim that Garcia's involvement was minor with the testimony of Ribera. The State also cross-examined Pardo at his original trial. Under all these circumstances, Pardo's testimony was improperly excluded during the penalty phase, and the jury should have had a chance to hear Pardo's testimony in which he denied that Garcia was involved in these murders.