248 So. 3d 1060
Fla.2018Background
- In 1991 William Earl Sweet was convicted of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted first-degree murder, and burglary for a 1990 shooting; the jury recommended death and the sentence became final in 1994.
- Sweet pursued multiple postconviction and habeas challenges over decades; this appeal concerns his sixth successive postconviction motion asserting newly discovered evidence.
- The new evidence consisted primarily of a 2017 affidavit from prisoner Eric Wilridge claiming he saw a masked shooter on the night of the crime and that Sweet was not the shooter, and assertions that victim Marcine Cofer may now question her identification.
- The postconviction court held an evidentiary hearing, received testimony from Wilridge and Cofer, and admitted an arrest record showing Wilridge had an arrest around the time of the offense. The court found both Wilridge’s and Cofer’s more recent testimony not credible.
- The court also considered earlier postconviction hearing evidence (McNish and Hansbury recantation) and concluded that, cumulatively, the newly discovered evidence would not likely produce an acquittal or different sentence on retrial. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sweet) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Wilridge arrest record | Record was untimely disclosed and irrelevant because it didn’t conclusively show Wilridge was incarcerated at the crime time | Record shows Wilridge likely could not be an eyewitness; any error in admission was harmless | Admission did not require reversal; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Credibility of Cofer’s alleged recantation | Cofer’s later statements undermine her trial identification and warrant a new hearing | Cofer’s trial ID was truthful; her later uncertainty is unreliable, influenced by time, drug use, and family contacts | Trial court’s finding that Cofer’s later testimony was not a true, credible recantation is supported by substantial competent evidence |
| Credibility of Wilridge affidavit/testimony | Wilridge’s affidavit describes seeing a masked shooter and excludes Sweet by build/complexion; his delay explained by fear | Wilridge is a multi‑felony inmate, gave inconsistent statements, and even recanted parts in letters; long delay undermines reliability | Trial court reasonably found Wilridge not credible; supported by substantial competent evidence |
| Application of newly discovered evidence standard (Jones) | Combined weight of Wilridge affidavit, Cofer’s doubt, and earlier evidence (McNish, Hansbury) meets Jones and would likely produce acquittal or different sentence | Newly discovered evidence is unreliable and, considered cumulatively with trial evidence, would not create a reasonable probability of a different outcome | Court correctly applied Jones: evidence would not probably produce acquittal or different sentence; relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998) (articulates two‑part test for newly discovered evidence)
- Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1991) (instructs trial court to consider admissible newly discovered evidence and weigh it against trial evidence)
- Lambrix v. State, 39 So. 3d 260 (Fla. 2010) (deference to trial court credibility findings on recantation)
- Heath v. State, 3 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 2009) (postconviction court duty to deny relief when recantation not credible)
- Consalvo v. State, 937 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 2006) (recantations are exceedingly unreliable; new trial only if testimony would likely change verdict)
- Green v. State, 975 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 2008) (standard of review for newly discovered evidence after an evidentiary hearing)
- Deparvine v. State, 995 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 2008) (erroneously admitted evidence may be harmless if it could not have affected outcome)
- Ibar v. State, 190 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 2016) (trial court has superior vantage on witness demeanor and credibility)
- Spann v. State, 91 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 2012) (appellate courts limited by cold record in assessing credibility)
- Archer v. State, 934 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2006) (affirming denial where recantation not credible and would not yield life or acquittal)
- Clark v. State, 35 So. 3d 880 (Fla. 2010) (noting lack of credibility for inmate witnesses serving multiple sentences)