Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

632 So. 2d 279

Docket No. 92-3479.

Kendrick v. State

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

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 23, 1994.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1994-02-23

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“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.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 874 So. 2d 14 - Peterson v. State

Relies on 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · Barnes v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1994-02-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2017

5 state decisions

30199420002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Cherry Grant, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3HERSEY, Judge.

¶4Michael 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).

¶5Four 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.

¶6Id. at 439 (citations omitted).

¶7The 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.

¶8Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

¶9REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶10POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

/632/so2d/279 · .json · Public domain