Opinion ID: 1746564
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inconsistent Positions

Text: Smith next claims that the State violated his right to due process by taking inconsistent positions at his and codefendant Eaglin's trials about who masterminded the escape. We decline to review this claim for two reasons. First, this claim was not preserved. Although Eaglin's trial occurred before Smith's, Smith did not raise this issue during either phase of his trial. Instead, Smith himself asserted it at his Spencer [10] hearing. After making his statement to relatives of the victims, Smith alleged that at Eaglin's trial the State argued Eaglin was the ringleader, but at Smith's trial contended it was Smith. Because this alleged inconsistency was not raised contemporaneously with the State's argument at trial, the issue is not preserved. Second, Smith fails to demonstrate that the State actually pursued inconsistent theories. We have previously held that to bring relevant matters contained in separate records before the Court, the party must move to supplement the record and attach verified and complete copies of the material. Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648, 653 (Fla.1995). Because Eaglin's case is currently pending in this Court, appellate counsel attempted to incorporate by reference the entire record in Eaglin's case. Counsel has not identified any evidence in that record, however, that the State took inconsistent positions at the separate trials. [11] Therefore, we cannot review this claim. Finally, at least one federal appellate court has rejected a claim that asserting inconsistent positions in codefendants' prosecutions violates due process. Fotopoulos v. Secretary, Dep't of Corrections, 516 F.3d 1229, 1235 (11th Cir.2008) (reversing the district court's conclusion that the prosecutor's use of inconsistent theories at the separate trials about the defendant's domination of his codefendant violated due process); see also Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 190, 125 S.Ct. 2398, 162 L.Ed.2d 143 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring) ([The] Court has never hinted, much less held, that the Due Process Clause prevents a State from prosecuting defendants based on inconsistent theories.).