91 So. 3d 125
Fla.2012Background
- Van Poyck, condemned inmate, seeks postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851; circuit court summarily denied second successive motion.
- Appeal involves alleged newly discovered evidence from juror affidavits obtained in 2010 that purportedly show non-triggerman status.
- Affidavits claim jurors would have imposed life sentence if they had known Van Poyck was not the triggerman.
- Court has repeatedly rejected similar claims; this claim is untimely and based on inadmissible evidence that inheres in the verdict.
- Trial record showed Van Poyck was the instigator/major participant; direct appeal found he was not the triggerman but death sentence proportionate.
- Affidavits rely on misleading premise that Van Poyck was not the triggerman, contradicting this Court’s prior determinations and the jury’s original death recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claim is procedurally barred as to newly discovered evidence. | Van Poyck argues newly discovered affidavits could yield lesser sentence. | State asserts untimely, procedurally barred by Jones II and rule 3.851. | Claim barred; untimely and improperly based on ineligible evidence. |
| Whether juror affidavits are admissible to impeach a verdict. | Affidavits show jurors’ changed opinions on sentencing. | Affidavits inquire into internal juror thought, which is inadmissible. | Affidavits inadmissible as to matters inherent in verdict; do not constitute new evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Poyck v. State (Van Poyck I), 564 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 1990) (direct-appeal upholds conviction; non-triggerman status not fatal to sentence; death sentence proportionate)
- Van Poyck v. State (Van Poyck V), 961 So.2d 220 (Fla. 2007) (newly discovered evidence claim rejected; prior precedent controls)
- Van Poyck v. McCollum (Van Poyck VI), 646 F.3d 865 (11th Cir. 2011) (affirming dismissal of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim; triggerman issue unresolved in federal review)
- Duckett v. State, 918 So.2d 224 (Fla. 2005) (juror testimony about deliberations generally inadmissible)
- Jones v. State (Jones II), 709 So.2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (newly discovered evidence test, two-prong process)
- Davis v. State, 26 So.3d 519 (Fla. 2011) (new evidence must show likely impact on sentence; untimely here)