FREDERICK L. WILSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed convictions for armed burglary and armed robbery, holding that a trial court properly admitted a witness's prior consistent statement to rebut implied suggestions of recent fabrication and improper motive during cross-examination.
A prior consistent statement made before any motive to fabricate arose is admissible in rebuttal when cross-examination implies recent fabrication or improper influence.
[1] A witness's prior consistent statement is admissible in rebuttal to rebut implied suggestions of recent fabrication or improper motive arising from cross-examination, eve…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the court properly permitted use of the statement to rebut defense counsel's implied assertion of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication”
Court's reasoning for admitting the prior consistent statement despite redundancy objection
Wilson was convicted of armed burglary and two armed robberies. A witness testified against him, and defense counsel extensively cross-examined her re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Improper Influence cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of his convictions and sentences for armed burglary and two armed robberies. We affirm because we find that the lower court did not err in admitting evidence of a witness’s prior consistent statement over objection on the ground that it was just redundant reinforcement of testimony on direct^ examination. Appellant’s argument here addresses only the court’s ruling that there were inferences of recent fabrication during cross examination sufficient to permit use of the statement in rebuttal.
The record reflects that defense counsel extensively questioned the witness as to the circumstances of her own plea negotiations and the state’s sentencing recommendation, and as to the circumstance that the witness’s sentencing proceeding was being delayed until after appellant’s trial. The wit ness’s prior statement was made at the time of her arrest, before any plea negotiations or related events occurred. We conclude that the court properly permitted use of the statement to rebut defense counsel’s implied assertion of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication. See McElveen v. State, 415 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); § 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
The order appealed is affirmed.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 609 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 1992)…. Accordingly, because the statements in question were given prior to the plea negotiations and therefore prior to the existence of both witnesses’ motive to fabricate they were properly admitted. Dufour v. State, 495 So. 2d at 160; Wilson v. State, 434 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The State concedes that the testimony of Detective Castillo recounting the information gathered by police from witnesses concerning Mr. Saladrigas’ dying declarations, as well as the detective’s testimony concerning Jose Arzola…
-
Dufour v. State, 495 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 1986)…he witnesses’ credibility, raising the specters of both improper motive and recent fabrication. Because, too, the statement in question was made at the time of Taylor’s arrest in October 1982, prior to the robbery plea negotiations, Wilson v. State, 434 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), and the actual filing of the Georgia murder charge, the trial court could properly have found that the statement was made prior to the existence of Taylor’s motive to fabricate. In his sixth point on appeal, appellant argues th…
-
Carroll v. State, 497 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…only permits the admission of prior consistent statements made before the existence of the facts said to indicate the improper influence. See Preston v. State, 470 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); McElveen, 415 So. 2d at 748. See also Wilson v. State, 434 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Kellam, 287 So. 2d at 734. In the present case, the fact said to indicate the influence was the discussion between Martin and the police, which occurred prior to Martin making the statement involved here. Thus, all Martin’s stat…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McELVEEN v. State, 415 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)