Swafford v. State
125 So. 3d 760
| Fla. | 2013Background
- In 1982 Brenda Rucker was kidnapped from a FINA station, shot nine times, and found clothed; the medical examiner concluded sexual battery based primarily on positive acid phosphatase (AP) tests from vaginal and anal swabs, though no spermatozoa were identified. Roy Swafford was convicted of first‑degree murder and sexual battery in 1985 and sentenced to death.
- At trial FDLE analyst Keith Paul testified to positive AP results (a presumptive indicator of seminal fluid) and the medical examiner relied on those results to conclude sexual battery occurred; the jury also heard that Swafford had been seen with a gun at the Shingle Shack and an out‑of‑court statement by Swafford suggesting he could abduct and shoot a woman.
- Years later (2004–2005) FDLE retested the original swabs and obtained negative AP results; experts at the postconviction hearing also testified that AP is presumptive, that AP may occur in nonseminal fluids, and that other 1982 tests (no choline, no sperm) made semen less likely.
- Postconviction proceedings produced additional evidence pointing to another viable suspect (Michael Walsh) who matched a BOLO, had a vehicle like the one observed at the abduction, dealt in stolen .38s, and possessed a BOLO flyer when arrested elsewhere.
- The trial and postconviction courts differed on reliability and materiality of the new testing; the Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether the retesting constituted newly discovered evidence that would probably produce an acquittal on retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Swafford) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2004 negative AP retesting is newly discovered evidence meeting Jones test | 2004 negative AP results materially undercut the sole forensic basis for the sexual battery finding; combined with other postconviction evidence (nonmatching pubic hair, Brady material pointing to Walsh), the new evidence would probably produce an acquittal | The 2004 retest is unreliable after decades of storage; even if credited it does not overcome trial evidence (rectal lacerations, blood, circumstantial links) supporting sexual battery | Court: 2004 retesting qualifies as newly discovered evidence and, when considered cumulatively with admissible trial and postconviction evidence, so weakens the sexual battery case that acquittal on retrial is probable; sexual battery conviction vacated |
| Effect of undermining sexual battery on first‑degree murder conviction (predicate for motive and admission evidence) | Without sexual battery, the State’s motive theory collapses, the Williams/statement evidence may be inadmissible, and remaining proof (gun link and possible proximity) is weak; cumulative new evidence (Walsh) creates reasonable doubt | State: sexual battery evidence is not solely determinative; other admissible evidence (possession/losing gun at Shingle Shack, incriminating statement, timeline) still supports conviction; additional suspect evidence is unreliable or cumulative | Court: Vacated murder conviction — the new forensic evidence plus admissible postconviction evidence (including evidence pointing to Walsh) weaken the case so as to give rise to reasonable doubt; remand for new trial |
| Reliability/authenticity of FDLE 2004 testing and need for further contamination hearing | Swafford sought further testing and hearings to address contamination/authenticity and to choose an independent expert | State and dissent argued the 2004 tests were unreliable or that testing limitations and storage issues make retesting unprobative; some procedural bars applied | Court: Did not accept State’s challenge to 2004 testing reliability; postconviction court’s factual findings that retesting was newly discovered evidence were supported; because relief granted on first claim, court did not decide remaining testing‑selection/contamination claims |
| Whether newly discovered evidence would probably yield a lesser sentence (death) on retrial | Removing sexual‑battery aggravator would at least eliminate death penalty; retrial could result in lesser sentence | State: Other aggravators remain (prior violent felony, avoid arrest, CCP); new evidence unlikely to change sentencing outcome | Court: Because convictions and sentences for both sexual battery and first‑degree murder vacated, remand for new trial; court observed significant probability of acquittal on charges and at minimum removal of sexual‑battery aggravator (thus sentence relief implicit) |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1991) (Jones I) (newly discovered evidence must probably yield a less severe sentence when relief seeks vacatur of sentence)
- Jones v. State, 709 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (Jones II) (two‑prong test for newly discovered evidence: unknown despite due diligence and likely to produce acquittal on retrial; newly discovered evidence that "weakens the case" gives rise to reasonable doubt)
- Lightbourne v. State, 742 So.2d 238 (Fla. 1999) (trial court must consider all admissible newly discovered evidence and the totality/cumulative impact when assessing probability of acquittal)
- Swafford v. State, 533 So.2d 270 (Fla. 1988) (direct appeal affirming convictions; discusses trial evidence and admission of defendant’s statements)
- Green v. State, 975 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 2008) (appellate review standard for postconviction factual findings and de novo review of legal conclusions)