Opinion ID: 1561466
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Anderson Claim Based on Testimony of Hess

Text: Hurst claims a violation of Anderson v. State, 574 So.2d 87 (Fla.1991), contending that the State prosecuted him on an indictment obtained after Carl Hess lied to the grand jury by testifying that he interviewed Hurst. In Anderson, we held that due process is violated if a prosecutor permits a defendant to be tried upon an indictment which he or she knows is based on perjured, material testimony without informing the court, opposing counsel, and the grand jury. Id. at 91. The postconviction court denied the claim, finding that the evidence did not support the claim that Hess lied before the grand jury. We agree with this assessment. Hess testified at a postconviction evidentiary hearing July 9, 2004, that the matter of whether he interviewed Hurst did not come up when he testified before the grand jury. The following colloquy took place: Q. [defense counsel]: Do you recall if you testified at the grand jury that you interviewed Mr. Hurst? A. It never came up. .... Q. In any event, if the record reflects that you did testify at the grand jury and you testified that you interviewed Mr. Hurst, that's not true? A. It never came up. We are aware that Hess made a statement in his September 14, 1998, deposition prior to the trial in this case, which could be interpreted as indicating he told the grand jury, falsely, that he interviewed Hurst. Hess testified in that deposition as follows: Q. [defense counsel] How long was your interview with the gentleman you chose not to recommend? A. About twenty minutes, half an hour. Q. When the police asked you about him, did they ask you whether there was any paperwork that he might have filled out? A. No, ma'am. Q. Did you think of the possibility that there might have been some paperwork and whether to retrieve it or not? A. No, they didn't ask me about that. Actually, I didn't tell them I interviewed him until I was in front of the grand jury. You know, I said I knew him personally. However, at the Huff hearing held in this postconviction proceeding on March 18, 2005, defense counsel expressly rejected any reliance on Hess's deposition for this claim. Even if Hess gave false testimony about interviewing Hurst when he testified before the grand jury, relief would not be warranted, because the testimony was not material in any respect that would have affected the indictment issued in the cause. We held in Anderson that relief will not be granted if the testimony, even if false in part, was not false in any material respect that would have affected the indictment. Id. at 92; see also Evans v. State, 808 So.2d 92, 101 (Fla.2001) (same, citing Anderson ). In this case, Hess had other bases to support his identification of Hurst. Hess provided Hurst with an application for Wendy's employment and was later handed the completed application by Hurst. Hess also worked in the parking lot of Wendy's where he saw Hurst coming and going at Popeye's. Additionally, Hess's testimony was not the only evidence heard by the grand jury before the indictment was handed down. Michael Williams testified before the grand jury, telling them that Hurst confessed that he cut the victim with a box cutter. Lee-Lee Smith testified before the grand jury as well. Therefore, trial court did not err in denying Hurst's Anderson claim without another evidentiary hearing, and relief is denied on this claim.