Kendrick v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kendrick v. State

632 So. 2d 279, 1994 WL 51878

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 1994

Docket92-3479

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 632 So. 2d 279 (Kendrick v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kendrick v. State, 632 So. 2d 279, 1994 WL 51878 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

632 So.2d 279 (1994)

Michael KENDRICK, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 92-3479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

February 23, 1994.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Cherry Grant, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

HERSEY, Judge.

Michael Kendrick appeals his conviction and sentence challenging various evidentiary rulings. The gravamen of appellant's complaint involves several allegedly hearsay statements admitted over objection. The state concedes that some of the testimony constituted hearsay but argues that admission of these statements into evidence was harmless error under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).

Four of the five statements conceded to be hearsay were introduced through law enforcement witnesses. In each instance the statements served to bolster the testimony of witnesses adverse to appellant. As we said in Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991):

A witness's prior consistent statement may not be used to bolster his trial testimony. The rationale prohibiting the use of prior consistent statements is to prevent "putting a cloak of credibility" on the witness's testimony. When a police officer, who is generally regarded by the jury as disinterested and objective and therefore highly credible is the corroborating witness, the danger of improperly influencing the jury becomes particularly grave.

Id. at 439 (citations omitted).

The cumulative effect of the testimony in this case was particularly devastating to appellant's defense. It therefore cannot be said that the errors in admitting the challenged hearsay were harmless.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

632 So.2d 279 (1994)

Michael KENDRICK, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 92-3479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

February 23, 1994.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Cherry Grant, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

HERSEY, Judge.

Michael Kendrick appeals his conviction and sentence challenging various evidentiary rulings. The gravamen of appellant's complaint involves several allegedly hearsay statements admitted over objection. The state concedes that some of the testimony constituted hearsay but argues that admission of these statements into evidence was harmless error under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).

Four of the five statements conceded to be hearsay were introduced through law enforcement witnesses. In each instance the statements served to bolster the testimony of witnesses adverse to appellant. As we said in Barnes v. State, 576 So.2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991):

A witness's prior consistent statement may not be used to bolster his trial testimony. The rationale prohibiting the use of prior consistent statements is to prevent "putting a cloak of credibility" on the witness's testimony. When a police officer, who is generally regarded by the jury as disinterested and objective and therefore highly credible is the corroborating witness, the danger of improperly influencing the jury becomes particularly grave.

Id. at 439 (citations omitted).

The cumulative effect of the testimony in this case was particularly devastating to appellant's defense. It therefore cannot be said that the errors in admitting the challenged hearsay were harmless.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 So. 2d 279, 1994 WL 51878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kendrick-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Michael KENDRICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Michael KENDRICK, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.