Parker v. StateParker v. State
The appellant, Robert Lacy Parker, was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder, and one count of third-degree murder, and was sentenced to death. We affirmed the convictions and sentences. Parker v. State, 458 So.2d 750 (Fla. 1984), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1855, 85 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985). Appellant‘s mоtion to vacate judgment and sentence and his application for a stay of еxecution before the trial court, pursuant to
Appellant raises three claims, two of which we find to be meritless, and only one which warrants discussion.
Appellant alleges a Brady1 violation because the prosecutor at appellant‘s trial had made some cash payments, for lunch, travel expenses and loss of earnings, to several state witnesses. While we express no opinion on the propriety of these payments, see Groover v. State, 489 So.2d 15 (Fla. 1986), wе find appellant has shown nothing entitling him to relief.
Initially, we note that this issue has been addressеd before. Counsel for appellant discovered, subsequent to appellant‘s trial and advisory sentencing proceeding, that three witnesses, Carl Barton, Spencer Hance and Joan Bennett, had each received $20 from the prosecutor during the course of appellant‘s trial. Appellant brought this issue to the trial court‘s attention in his mоtion for new trial; this motion was denied. Appellant raised this issue before this Court on direct appeal; we found the issue to be insufficient to require reversal. 458 So.2d at 752. In the hearing below uрon the instant motion, the trial court stated in its order denying appellant‘s motion
Even if we assume that the nondisclosure of these small payments were a Brady violation, and that еvidence of the extent and amount of these payments was not available to appellant until this year as counsel for appellant alleges, we find that apрellant is not entitled to relief. In United States v. Bagley, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985), the United States Supreme Court held that evidence is “material” for Brady purposes, “only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Id. at 3384. Under this test, appellant‘s claim must fail. Appellant concedes that the testimony of Bennett and Long was crucial to the state‘s case. Our review of the trial rеcord shows that appellant cross-examined Bennett about her interest in testifying, informing thе jury that Bennett received a reduction in charges from first-degree murder to accessory after the fact in exchange for her testimony against appellant. Long was similаrly cross-examined by appellant about his interest in testifying, informing the jury that Long, who shot one оf the victims, Nancy Shepard, was allowed to plead guilty to second-degree murder and received a thirty-year prison sentence in exchange for his testimony against aрpellant. Applying the Bagley test, we must conclude that even if the jury had been informed about the one or two $20 dollar payments each of these witnesses allegedly received, the result of the trial would not have been different.
Appellant alleges this same Brady violation with numerous collateral witnesses and contends that these collateral witnesses contradicted appеllant‘s testimony, thus undermining appellant‘s credibility with the jury. According to appellant‘s argument, hаd his counsel been aware of these payments, he would have been able to shоw these witnesses’ interest in testifying. Even if true, we find the result to be totally speculative. The amоunt of money involved in these payments is small, and was characterized as simply lunch monеy, travel expenses and loss of earnings, and we cannot conclude that had the defense been aware of the payments, the result of appellant‘s trial would havе been different.
Accordingly, the trial court‘s denial of relief is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
McDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
OVERTON, J., dissents with an opinion.
OVERTON, Justice, dissenting.
I find the allegations require an evidentiary hearing.