Scipio v. State
| Decision Date | 23 January 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D02-2240.,5D02-2240. |
| Citation | 867 So.2d 427 |
| Parties | Stephen J. SCIPIO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Noel A. Pelella, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, and Larry B. Henderson, Assistant Public Defender, Holly Hill, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Scipio appeals from a final judgment and sentence after a jury convicted him of first degree murder. He was found guilty of shooting twenty-eight year-old Ogard Smith, in the early morning hours of January 21, 2001. The court sentenced Scipio to life imprisonment, without possibility of parole. Scipio raises several points on appeal. However, only one—that the state committed a discovery violation—has any merit. Because there is no reasonable possibility that the discovery violation prejudiced defense, we affirm.
At Scipio's trial, four witnesses identified him as Smith's assailant, but there was no physical evidence connecting Scipio to the crime. Smith was shot four times, and two projectiles were recovered from his body. They were possibly fired from the same pistol, most likely a revolver, but the gun was never recovered.
The testimony adduced at trial was that immediately prior to his death, Smith was shooting pool with Miles Garey in the pool room of the Southside Inn, a Daytona Beach nightclub, which is located in a high crime area. Garey testified that he and Smith had been at the Southside Inn only a short while, and that he was bending over shooting pool, when he heard Smith say "Oh, s-t, he's got a gun." Garey felt a bullet whiz by his ear and he ran outside the bar. Garey could not identify the shooter.
When police arrived, Smith was lying in the parking lot and bystanders were trying to help him. Smith was pronounced dead at the scene. Although police questioned potential witnesses at that time, no one claimed to have seen what happened. Scipio was not questioned by police because he was not in the area. However, three people (Harper, White and Gaines) subsequently gave police information about the crime, and testified at Scipio's trial that they saw him shoot Smith. A fourth witness testified that Scipio admitted shooting Smith to him.
The state's theory of the case was that Smith's murder was in retaliation for his testimony against an individual named Robert Allen. Smith had been the victim of a robbery perpetrated by Allen about a year earlier. Allen had been convicted of the robbery and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment, based in part on Smith's testimony.
Four days after the shooting, police stopped and questioned Harper. He told police that Scipio shot Smith after he and Gaines had a conversation at the Southside Inn to the effect that Smith should not be there because he had testified against Allen. Harper said that Smith had been previously "jumped on" because of his testimony in the Allen case, and that they didn't want him at the Southside Inn. Scipio left the bar, saying he would be "right back." Scipio returned with a gun.
He came into the bar room area, stopped and looked around. Then he walked into the pool room. Harper heard a sound like a firecracker, and a lot of people started running. Smith began crawling out of the bar and Harper saw Scipio following behind Smith, "telling him that he don't care if he die, f—k him, he got my homeboy 15 years, he shouldn't have came down here." Scipio followed Smith all the way outside the bar, shooting at him until bystanders intervened.
The second eyewitness was White. She testified that on the night of the murder, she was at the Southside Inn drinking and dancing. At one point, she heard a loud commotion, and then saw Scipio walk in and heard him in the opposite room make statements like "I oughta burn this f—king n___r dog." He walked into the room she was in and he continued to make similar statements. White said Scipio was "real hyped up." She kept her eye on him after that so that if anything happened, she could get out of the way. At some point Scipio left, but she later saw him return. Scipio walked past her, bumping her into the bar and when she turned around, she saw him start to shoot. She panicked, but ran when her cousin grabbed her hand.
The third eye-witness was Gaines who saw Scipio arguing with Allen's brother, Earl. Earl was trying to keep Scipio from getting a gun. But Scipio left and came back with a gun about twenty minutes later. Gaines saw him walk toward the area where the pool tables were located, and shoot into the pool room. Scipio then shot and kicked the man who was crawling on the ground. Gaines said Scipio shot the man as he crawled outside the bar.
The fourth witness, Hogan, was not at the Southside Inn at the time Smith was shot, but lived nearby. After Smith's death, Hogan provided information about the shooting to police. At trial, he said that on the evening of the shooting, Scipio came to his home after midnight. Scipio seemed intoxicated and stated that he had just killed a man at the Southside Inn, because the man had testified against his "homeboy." Hogan also saw the butt of a gun protruding from Scipio's coat.
Scipio's defense was that another person had committed the crime. The defense intended to rely, in part, on the testimony of Robert Burch, an investigator for the Medical Examiner's Office. During Burch's deposition, defense showed him a photograph of the crime scene outside the Inn, in the parking lot. Based upon this photograph, Burch said there had been a semi-automatic pistol under Smith's body, and that he had turned it over to law enforcement. Defense believed that this evidence could have created doubt in the mind of the jury as to whether Scipio was the assailant.
Defense counsel met with Burch on the morning of the trial and asked him to review his deposition testimony. Burch did so and said he agreed with it. However, Burch was subsequently approached by the prosecutor and asked about the weapon. Burch told the prosecutor he thought there was a photograph of a weapon.
The prosecutor brought Burch to the State Attorney's Office to review the photographs. Defense asked to accompany them but the prosecutor refused. The prosecutor produced the crime...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scipio v. State
...FL, for Respondent. ANSTEAD, J. Stephen J. Scipio seeks review of the Fifth District Court of Appeal's decision in Scipio v. State, 867 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), on the basis of conflict with numerous prior decisions of other district courts and this Court, including the decisions in P......
-
Rojas v. State, 5D04-495.
...The defendant's convictions and sentences must therefore be reversed and this case remanded for a new trial. See Scipio v. State, 867 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. granted, 880 So.2d 1212 (Fla.2004)(holding that the defense is procedurally prejudiced by a discovery violation if there is a ......
-
Washington v. State
...pool’ that [was] ‘exactly the type of conduct the discovery rules were designed to prevent.’ ” Id. at 1141 (quoting Scipio v. State, 867 So.2d 427, 430 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ). Even though the investigator's original statement was given on deposition (rather than being produced or in any way ......
-
Discovery
...to prepare for trial is the test. Scipio v. State, 928 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2006) approving in part and reversing in part Scipio v. State , 867 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) First District Court of Appeal Court abused its discretion by allowing testimony from an alibi rebuttal witness that the......