Opinion ID: 1579333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dr Wright's Testimony

Text: Duest's first claim of error involves the deposition and testimony of Dr. Ronald Wright, the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy of Mr. Pope. Duest attacks both his original conviction for first-degree murder and death sentence on the basis of his claim that the change in testimony constitutes newly discovered evidence, that counsel rendered deficient performance when confronted with the change in Dr. Wright's testimony, and that the State suppressed evidence of the changed testimony. By way of background, before affirming the sentence on direct appeal from Duest's second penalty phase, this Court denied Duest's 2001 motion to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to consider a change in Dr. Wright's testimony. This request arose because in Dr. Wright's original deposition taken in 1983, he estimated that the time of death occurred ten to fifteen seconds to no more than five minutes after the victim suffered a stab wound to the right side of his heart. [7] At Duest's initial trial in 1983, Dr. Wright testified that Mr. Pope died of multiple stab wounds, but did not specify the length of the time lapse between Mr. Pope's attack and his death. However, at the 1998 resentencing, Dr. Wright testified that loss of consciousness would occur fifteen to twenty minutes after the blows and death after another five to ten minutes. Dr. Wright also stated at the resentencing that the victim could have survived if he had called for help immediately but did not do so, opining that Mr. Pope was attempting to conceal his homosexual lifestyle. During the cross-examination of Dr. Wright at the resentencing, defense counsel questioned Dr. Wright about his opinion concerning how the victim was wounded and the amount of time that passed before death occurred. Once Dr. Wright revealed that he estimated death to have occurred within fifteen to twenty minutes, counsel impeached him with his deposition from 1983 in which he testified that the victim died within five minutes. In affirming Duest's sentence on direct appeal from the resentencing, this Court declined to address his Brady claim seeking a new guilt-phase trial based on the changed testimony, but stated that Duest was not precluded from raising this claim in a postconviction motion. Duest, 855 So.2d at 39. Specifically, this Court stated: Duest asserts that the testimony in the new penalty phase by medical examiner Dr. Ronald Wright as to the manner of the victim's death constitutes material, exculpatory evidence unlawfully withheld by the State.... Duest claims that this change in testimony shows that the assailant left the victim alive and therefore calls into question the intent to kill, requiring a new trial on his guilt of first-degree murder. We conclude that Duest's challenge to the murder conviction, which became final in 1985, is not properly before this Court in an appeal from the reimposition of a death sentence after the previous death sentence was vacated. Duest did not object to the testimony below, instead impeaching Dr. Wright on his change in testimony from 1983 to 1998. Nor has Duest filed a motion for postconviction relief asserting that the change in testimony constitutes either undisclosed exculpatory evidence or newly discovered evidence entitling him to a new trial. The absence of a pending motion for postconviction relief distinguishes this case from Way v. State, 630 So.2d 177 (Fla.1993), in which this Court reversed the summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief raising a Brady claim and withheld ruling on the direct appeal from resentencing pending disposition of the postconviction motion. Id. at 179. In recognition of Duest's efforts to raise this issue during the direct appeal, our affirmance is without prejudice to Duest raising the issue in the trial court via Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 after this appeal. Duest, 855 So.2d at 39-40 (footnote omitted). Duest filed a 3.851 motion and the trial court granted an evidentiary hearing regarding the change in Dr. Wright's testimony. [8] At the evidentiary hearing, Carlos Llorente, counsel from Duest's resentencing, testified that it was obvious that Dr. Wright's testimony had changed between the time of the guilt phase and resentencing. Moreover, he testified that he did not receive a discovery notice, memorandum, or other communication from the State notifying him that Dr. Wright had changed his testimony. With this background in mind, we now focus on the issue of whether the change in Dr. Wright's testimony satisfies the standard for granting a new trial either because it constituted newly discovered evidence under Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512 (Fla.1998) ( Jones III ), was prejudicial to Duest under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), or constituted material evidence under Brady. We begin with Duest's claim that the change in testimony constitutes newly discovered evidence which entitles him to a new guilt phase. To obtain a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, a defendant must meet two requirements. First, the evidence must not have been known by the trial court, the party, or counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that the defendant or defense counsel could not have known of it by the use of diligence. Second, the newly discovered evidence must be of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. See Jones III, 709 So.2d at 521. Newly discovered evidence satisfies the second prong of the Jones III test if it weakens the case against [the defendant] so as to give rise to a reasonable doubt as to his culpability. Id. at 526 (quoting Jones v. State, 678 So.2d 309, 315 (Fla. 1996) ( Jones II )). In determining whether the evidence compels a new trial, the trial court must consider all newly discovered evidence which would be admissible and must evaluate the weight of both the newly discovered evidence and the evidence which was introduced at the trial. Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911, 916 (Fla.1991). ( Jones I ). This determination includes whether the evidence goes to the merits of the case or whether it constitutes impeachment evidence. The trial court should also determine whether the evidence is cumulative to other evidence in the case. The trial court should further consider the materiality and relevance of the evidence and any inconsistencies in the newly discovered evidence. Jones III, 709 So.2d at 521 (citations omitted). We deny the newly discovered evidence claim because Dr. Wright's revised testimony does not meet the second prong of Jones III in that it is not of such nature that it would probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Although Duest asserts that the changed testimony would have affected the State's ability to convince the jury that the murder was premeditated, we agree with the trial court's finding that the material elements of Dr. Wright's testimony would have had no impact on [Duest's] intent to kill.... The evidence introduced at trial established that Duest told a witness that he was going to a gay bar to roll a fag. Duest, 462 So.2d at 449. Duest was subsequently seen at a gay bar with the victim and driving with the victim in the victim's car. Id. Later, Duest was seen driving the victim's car alone. Id. Moreover, Duest was seen on the day of the murder with a knife in his waistband and the victim was found to have died from multiple stab wounds. Id. The attack was vicious and the wounds life-threatening. As this Court found on Duest's direct appeal from his resentencing regarding his assertion that there was a lack of an intent to kill, there is little or no basis to conclude that after inflicting the multiple wounds, Duest knowingly left Pope alive and with some prospect for survival. Duest, 855 So.2d at 47. In addition, we concluded that there was already ample evidence presented at the guilt phase, absent Dr. Wright's testimony, to support the trial court's instruction on the CCP aggravator, which requires a finding that `the defendant exhibited heightened premeditation.' Id. at 45 (quoting Jackson v. State, 648 So.2d 85, 89 (Fla.1994)). Specifically, the instruction on CCP was supported by evidence of Duest's prearranged plan to beat up and rob a gay man and Duest's act of returning to his temporary residence to obtain a knife while in the victim's company. Duest, 855 So.2d at 45. Consistent with our prior conclusion on direct appeal that Dr. Wright's changed testimony did not negate a finding of the CCP aggravator, see id., we likewise conclude that the testimony has no effect on the premeditated aspect of this murder and is not of such a nature as to probably produce an acquittal on retrial. Because Duest's claim does not meet the second prong of the newly discovered evidence test the trial court properly rejected the claim. In his next claim of error concerning Dr. Wright's testimony, Duest asserts that counsel rendered ineffective assistance at his resentencing. The essence of this claim is Duest's assertion that faced with the changed testimony, counsel should have sought sanctions based on a Richardson [9] violation or sought to have the guilt phase reopened. We have already disposed of the second aspect of this claim by concluding that there is no basis to grant a new guilt phase. [10] Therefore, we analyze only the first aspect of this claim to determine whether Duest is entitled to a new penalty phase. The trial court ultimately found that counsel had not provided ineffective assistance, a conclusion with which we agree. The yardstick by which we measure ineffective assistance of counsel claims is the seminal decision of the United States Supreme Court in Strickland. First, the defendant must establish that counsel's performance was deficient. Second, the defendant must establish that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. To establish the deficiency prong under Strickland, the defendant must prove that counsel's performance was unreasonable under prevailing professional norms. Garcia v. State, 949 So.2d 980, 987 (Fla.2006). To establish the prejudice prong under Strickland, the defendant must prove that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. White v. State, 964 So.2d 1278, 1285 (Fla. 2007) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052). During the cross-examination of Dr. Wright at the resentencing, counsel questioned Dr. Wright about his opinion on how the victim was wounded and the amount of time that passed before death occurred. Once Dr. Wright revealed that he estimated death to have occurred within fifteen to twenty minutes, counsel impeached him with his deposition from 1983, where he testified that the victim died within five minutes. During closing argument, counsel relied on Dr. Wright's testimony that the victim lived up to twenty minutes after the attack and could have survived had he sought help, and argued to the jury that this could be considered a mitigating circumstance. The question before us is whether counsel's conduct in vigorously cross-examining Dr. Wright instead of pursuing other alternative courses undermines confidence in the outcome of the penalty phase. Duest argues that counsel should have requested that sanctions be imposed by alleging a discovery violation under Richardson. To understand whether trial counsel's actions were reasonable or whether prejudice can be demonstrated, we review the case law regarding Richardson. Once a trial court has notice of an alleged failure to disclose a witness, the trial court is obligated to conduct a Richardson inquiry. See Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792, 812 (Fla.2002). The focus of this hearing is to determine whether the state's violation was inadvertent or willful, whether the violation was trivial or substantial, and most importantly, what effect, if any, did it have upon the ability of the defendant to properly prepare for trial. Richardson, 246 So.2d at 775. Yet, even assuming a Richardson hearing had been held and a discovery violation determined to have occurred, we must consider the available sanctions, which could have ranged from providing counsel an opportunity to redepose Dr. Wright to striking Dr. Wright's testimony to granting a mistrial. Regarding the option of deposing Dr. Wright, counsel in the penalty phase was fully able to cross-examine the doctor. Notably, counsel did not testify at the evidentiary hearing as to anything else that could have been done to further impeach Dr. Wright if counsel had been provided an opportunity to redepose him during trial. As to the possible sanction of granting a mistrial, there is likewise nothing in the record to show that there would have been any additional or different testimony presented at a new penalty phase regarding Dr. Wright's testimony. Lastly, as to the sanction of striking Dr. Wright's testimony completely, this would be an extreme remedy and there is nothing in this record to show that such a remedy would have been justified. See McDuffie v. State, 970 So.2d 312, 321 (Fla.2007) (Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(n)(1) authorizes a trial court to exclude evidence as a sanction for a violation of the discovery rules, but this sanction should only be imposed when there is no other remedy.). Based on a review of the possible outcomes of the sanctions, even if Duest were to establish that counsel's failure to request the hearing constituted deficient performance, we find that Duest has not demonstrated prejudice. Importantly, the only aggravator found by the trial court that relied on Dr. Wright's testimony was HAC, which was also found by the trial court at Duest's initial sentencing proceeding. As the trial court stated in its denial of this claim: Dr. Wright's revised opinions did not alter or cast any reasonable doubt about the facts and evidence that Mr. Pope was alive and conscious when he received the multiple stab wounds and that he lived at least several minutes before he died from these wounds or that the aggravators would not have been established or the mitigators would have outweighed the aggravators in this case. In this case, there is nothing in the record to show that the prosecutor attempted to argue HAC at the resentencing based on Dr. Wright's changed testimony. At the original trial, the trial court found the HAC and CCP aggravators, despite the fact that Dr. Wright was not specific as to how long Mr. Pope lived after the attack. On appeal, this Court affirmed these findings. Duest, 462 So.2d at 449-50. Additionally, as this Court found on Duest's direct appeal from his resentencing, Dr. Wright's resentencing testimony does not negate a finding of the HAC aggravator or an instruction on the CCP aggravator. See Duest, 855 So.2d at 45-47. [11] In neither of its affirmances did this Court rely on a specific time estimate in Dr. Wright's testimony to find that competent, substantial evidence supported the HAC or CCP aggravators. [12] We evaluate prejudice by determining whether our confidence in the outcome of the penalty phase is undermined, which includes evaluating the probable effect of any ineffective assistance error on the jury's recommendation. In this case, based on our analysis of the role Dr. Wright's testimony played, there is no basis to conclude that his resentencing testimony affected the finding of the HAC aggravator or the jury's ultimate death recommendation. For all the reasons stated, our confidence in the outcome is not undermined and we uphold the trial court's denial of this claim. Finally, we address Duest's argument that he is entitled to a new guilt and penalty phase based on the State's failure to disclose that Dr. Wright had significantly changed his testimony. This claim is also without merit. Under the United States Supreme Court decision in Brady, the State is required to disclose material information within its possession or control that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant. Mordenti v. State, 894 So.2d 161, 168 (Fla.2004). To establish a Brady violation, the defendant has the burden to show (1) that favorable evidenceeither exculpatory or impeaching, (2) was willfully or inadvertently suppressed by the State, and (3) because the evidence was material, the defendant was prejudiced. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281-82, 119 S.Ct. 1936, 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); see also Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000). To meet the materiality prong, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that had the suppressed evidence been disclosed the jury would have reached a different verdict. Strickler, 527 U.S. at 289, 119 S.Ct. 1936. As with prejudice under Strickland, materiality under Brady requires a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. See Way, 760 So.2d at 913; see also Strickler, 527 U.S. at 290, 119 S.Ct. 1936; United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) (expressly applying the Strickland standard of reasonable probability to Brady cases). We do not reach the issue of materiality because Duest has not established that evidence of Dr. Wright's changed testimony was suppressed by the State. [13] As to the guilt phase, there was no evidence presented to suggest that Dr. Wright changed his opinion before the end of the guilt phase and that the State was aware of the change before Duest was convicted. Duest's claim also fails as it relates to his resentencing because Duest became aware of the new testimony during Dr. Wright's cross-examination before the resentencing had concluded. See Doorbal v. State, 983 So.2d 464, 480 (Fla.2008) (finding that defendant failed to establish that the State suppressed evidence where impeaching evidence had been referred to during a pretrial hearing and was brought out on witness cross-examination). Thus, Duest's allegation of a Brady violation by the State is without merit.