Opinion
No. 98-2227.
Opinion filed November 24, 1999.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge, L.T. No. 94-3685
Sharpstein Sharpstein and Janice Burton Sharpstein, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Douglas J. Glaid, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before JORGENSON, GREEN, and SHEVIN, JJ.
Noel Nogues appeals from a conviction on one count of perjury. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Nogues, a former City of Miami police officer, was charged with making a false statement under oath. The statement was allegedly made during a formal investigation of an extortion scheme directed at other officers.
During the perjury trial, the principal witness for the state, Charles Orrett, was also a former officer who had agreed to cooperate with both state and federal authorities in exchange for leniency. Although the officer admitted that he had committed over thirty felonies, he was sentenced to only seven years in federal prison instead of facing fifteen to twenty-five years in state prison, and he retained his state pension and medical benefits. The full extent of this officer's cooperation with authorities and the benefits that he exacted from this cooperation were not revealed until after the trial ended.
The State had an affirmative duty to disclose all the terms of Orrett's plea agreement, as those terms were material to determining the credibility of the witness. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972);Moore v. State, 623 So.2d 608, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) ("The failure to fully inform the jury of an agreement between a state witness and the state constitutes a denial of due process if the jury is misled as to the facts bearing on the credibility of the witness."). The State's failure to do so is reversible error. The trial court's limitation on the defendant's cross-examination of Orrett as to the terms of his agreement also constitutes reversible error. See Alvarez v. State, 467 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that it is harmful error for a trial court to limit cross-examination of state witness concerning details of plea agreement),disapproved of on other grounds, Riechmann v. State, 581 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1991). In this case, although the jury was apprised of the existence of a plea agreement between the state, the federal government, and the witness, the jurors were not aware of the full generosity of those terms.
Because this issue requires reversal, we do not reach the other issues on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.