Floyd v. State
202 So. 3d 137
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Nathan C. Floyd was convicted of sexual battery after prostitutes testified he threatened one with a knife and did not pay; Floyd argued the encounters were consensual and payment disputes motivated false accusations.
- Two witnesses (B.M. and A.B.) testified for the State; there were no independent witnesses to the alleged assaults. Floyd was convicted in 2012 and his conviction was previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- After trial, two jailhouse witnesses (Rebecca Pacino and Rachel Troupe) provided affidavits saying they overheard B.M. admit she and others planned to lie at Floyd’s trial because Floyd failed to pay them.
- Floyd filed a postconviction motion under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.850 seeking a new trial based on the alleged newly discovered evidence; the trial court summarily denied relief, concluding the evidence was impeachment-only and would not probably produce an acquittal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed in part and remanded, holding the record did not conclusively refute Floyd’s claim and that credibility issues warranted an evidentiary hearing on whether the new evidence would probably produce an acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether postconviction affidavits alleging witness fabrication constitute newly discovered evidence warranting relief | Floyd: Affidavits from Pacino and Troupe are new, show B.M. planned to lie, and likely would produce acquittal on retrial | State: Affidavits impeach only B.M., possibly not A.B.; evidence is impeachment-only and duplicates defense theory presented at trial, so would not probably change result | Court: Evidence qualifies as newly discovered in part and the record does not conclusively show it would not probably produce an acquittal; remand for further proceedings/evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the trial court erred by summarily denying without an evidentiary hearing | Floyd: Credibility of jailhouse witnesses creates factual dispute requiring a hearing | State: Hearing not required because evidence is impeachment-only and would not likely change result | Court: An evidentiary hearing is often required to resolve credibility and weight of new evidence; summary denial was improper here because the second prong (probable acquittal) was not properly evaluated |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 904 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 2005) (standards for newly discovered evidence in postconviction relief)
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991) (court must consider admissible newly discovered evidence and weigh it against trial evidence)
- Barrow v. State, 940 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (remanding for evidentiary hearing where affidavit raised credibility issues on newly discovered evidence)
- Reichman v. State, 966 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2007) (affirming denial after evidentiary hearing where new witness testimony was inadmissible/hearsay or outweighed by trial evidence)