Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of Nathaniel Morrow’s second postconviction motion based on newly discovered evidence consisting of a witness’s recantation. The court held that competent substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the recantation was not credible and was unlikely to produce a different verdict.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in denying Morrow's second motion for postconviction relief based on newly discovered recantation evidence.
- Whether competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding that the recantation was not credible and was unlikely to produce a different verdict.
Holdings
- Recanted testimony warrants postconviction relief only when the trial court is satisfied that the recantation is true and that the changed testimony would probably produce a different verdict.
- The trial court may deny postconviction relief when competent substantial evidence supports its finding that a recantation is not credible and the newly discovered evidence is unlikely to produce a different verdict.
Key quotations
“Florida law treats recantations with suspicion[.]” (at 2)
“Recanted testimony is a form of newly discovered evidence, and postconviction relief predicated upon recanted testimony will not entitle a defendant to a new trial unless (1) the trial court is satisfied that the recantation is true; and (2) the witness’ testimony will change to such an extent as to render probable a different verdict.” (at 2)
“Upon review of the record, we find there was competent substantial evidence for the trial court to conclude the recantation was not credible and that the newly discovered evidence was unlikely to render a different verdict.” (at 2-3)
Factual background
Morrow's postconviction motion relied on a witness's affidavit recanting the witness's 2003 trial testimony. At the evidentiary hearing, the witness testified that he had never been robbed and that his trial testimony was false. The trial court found the recantation incredible based on inconsistencies and omissions between the affidavit and the hearing testimony. The record also contained testimony from two additional eyewitnesses who unequivocally identified Morrow as the armed robber and corroborated the details of the robbery.
Procedural history
Morrow sought postconviction relief based on a witness affidavit recanting the witness's 2003 trial testimony. The circuit court held a full evidentiary hearing, found the recantation incredible because of inconsistencies and omissions, and denied relief. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed.