In Anderson v. State, 574 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1991), the defendant shot the victim in the victim's car after the victim gave the defendant a ride. Id. at 89. After dumping the victim's body in a wooded area, the defendant drove the victim's car to the Tampa airport, where he abandoned it, and kept the victim's satchel containing money. Id. The Court upheld the death sentence based on the trial court's finding of two aggravating circumstances (previous capital felony and pecuniary gain/CCP (merged)) and one mitigating circumstance (accomplice allowed to plead guilty to third-degree murder). Id. at 90 nn.2-3, 95. In Anderson v. State, the defendant claimed that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment when a witness admitted that her grand jury testimony differed from her trial testimony. 574 So. 2d at 90. The defendant contended that because the State knew prior to trial that the witness's grand jury testimony was perjured and did nothing to correct the testimony, the trial court should have dismissed the indictment. See id. The Court held that "due process is violated if a prosecutor permits a defendant to be tried upon an indictment which he or she knows is based on perjured, material testimony without informing the court, opposing counsel, and the grand jury." Id. at 91. However, the Court found that although the testimony was false in part, "it was not false in any material respect that would have affected the indictment." Id. at 92. Moreover, the Court explained that this was not a case where it was faced with deliberate subornation, because the State did not knowingly present false testimony to the grand jury. See id.