Opinion ID: 306408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: retroactive application of the new florida severance statute

Text: 9 The basic position taken by the Florida Supreme Court in this case was that petitioner had not met the requirements that would justify granting his motion and that the intermediate appellate court had erred when it in effect, shifted the burden to the State to show that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for new trial [based on the denial of the motion to sever]. Although in affirming the trial court's action the Florida Supreme Court recognized the fundamental nature of the right of one accused of a crime to call witnesses on his own behalf, 243 So.2d at 597; see also Washington v. Texas, 1967, 388 U.S. 14, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019, the Florida court found that certain requirements must be met before a co-defendant can be made available for testimony by severance: 10 We hold that a severance shall be granted, in accordance with Rule 1.190 (j), F.Cr.P. 33 F.S.A. when one of several codefendants files a bona fide motion based on necessity rather than mere convenience, which motion shows: (1) the exculpatory nature of the testimony to be elicited from a codefendant; (2) is accompanied by some assurance that the codefendant is willing to testify; (3) sets out the facts indicating that the codefendant would not be willing to testify at a joint trial; (4) clearly indicates that the testimony sought from the codefendant is relevant, material, competent and noncumulative. The foregoing information is necessary in order that the trial court may properly evaluate the motion and prevent the misuse of severance by codefendants as an alibi-swapping device. 11 243 So.2d at 597. 12 Finding that petitioner had not met those standards, 2 the court quashed the order requiring an investigation into the merits of petitioner's demand for severance. 13 The Florida Supreme Court thus held petitioner to the standards of Rule 1.190, Fla.R.Crim.Proc. 3 33 F.S.A. But that rule was not operative at the time of petitioner's trial; rather, petitioner was tried in 1967, when Fla.Stat.Ann. Sec. 918.02 was still in effect. 4 Petitioner thus could be held only to the standards of Sec. 918.02, and that statute on its face demands less of the movant than does Rule 1.190. 5 14 Because the state trial court gave no reasons for denying petitioner's motion for severance, we can only assume that the denial was justified on the reasoning employed by the Florida Supreme Court-that is, that the trial court denied the motion because it did not meet the demands of Rule 1.190 as later interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court. 15 We think it sufficient to repeat without lengthy citation what is now an axiom of American jurisprudence: The Constitution prohibits a state from retrospectively applying a new or modified law or rule in such a way that a person accused of a criminal offense suffers any significant prejudice in the presentation of his defense. See, e. g., Bouie v. City of Columbia, 1964, 378 U.S. 347, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894; Kring v. Missouri, 1883, 107 U.S. 221, 2 S. Ct. 443, 27 L.Ed. 506. The two severance rules involved here differ markedly, and by applying the newer version retrospectively, the state has cut off petitioner's right to present the merits of his motion for severance. The new rule requires the movant to state the grounds on which it is based and further requires a showing of prejudice. But the statute in effect at the time petitioner stood trial only required a motion. We interpret that statute, and the state has cited to us no cases to the contrary, as having allowed movants to elaborate the grounds supporting their motions after filing. Petitioner claims that he relied on that interpretation of the old statute when he filed his motion, and he alleges that he would have presented valid reasons why the motion should have been granted if the state had only given him an opportunity to do so. 16 We do not purport to question the constitutionality of either statute; indeed, petitioner correctly admits that that question is not before us. We merely hold that a defendant in a state criminal prosecution is denied due process of law when any of his substantive rights are disposed of by the retroactive application of a statute or rule that was not in effect at the time he sought to exercise the right.