BENNIE DEMPS, 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.
Demps appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 post-conviction motion claiming the state interfered with a defense witness. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the trial court's denial of relief, finding no credible evidence that the state induced a witness not to testify about allegedly coercive statements made by the prosecution's key witness.
The trial court did not err in finding that Demps failed to prove by believable evidence that the state interfered with the defense witness. The trial court's sustaining of the objection to prior consistent statements was not reversible error given that no impeachment of the witness occurred on cross-examination.
[1] An appellate court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, including the credibility of witnesses and the weight of evidence, w…
[2] Prior consistent statements are generally inadmissible as bolstering testimony unless the witness has been impeached by evidence suggesting recent fabrication or other cr…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Having heard the testimony of the witnesses and having observed the demeanor of each witness while testifying, and further having examined all exhibits filed in evidence, this court, with full and conscious realization of the significance and magnitude of the issues raised herein, finds that the Defendant has failed to prove his claim by any believable evidence.”
The trial court's factual finding that Demps failed to meet his burden of proof regarding state interference with the defense witness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDemps was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for killing fellow inmate Alfred Sturgis at Florida State Prison. The defense sought…
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 Recent Fabrication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Demps appeals the denial of his rule 3.850 motion following an evidentiary hearing on his claim that the state interfered with a defense witness. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution, and we affirm the trial court.
Demps was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death for killing Alfred Sturgis, a fellow inmate at Florida State Prison. We affirmed the conviction and sentence. Demps v. State, 395 So. 2d 501 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 933, 102 S.Ct. 430, 70 L.Ed.2d 239 (1981). The Governor signed his death warrant, and his execution was scheduled for June 29, 1982. Demps filed a motion for post-conviction relief, which was denied without hearing by the trial court. He appealed that denial and sought a stay of execution here. We affirmed the trial court’s denial of relief on all of Demps’ claims except the claim that the state interfered with a defense witness. We reversed and remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on that issue. We granted a stay of execution pending disposition of the issue. Demps v. State, 416 So. 2d 808 (Fla.1982).
Demps sought to demonstrate at the hearing that the state, through Department of Corrections Investigator Bill Beardsley, induced Michael Squires not to testify that the state’s central witness, Larry Hathaway, had told Squires that he was pressured to testify and that he did not know who killed Sturgis. The defense put on numerous witnesses, including Squires. Larry Hathaway testified for the state that his testimony at trial had been truthful and that he had not told Squires that he knew nothing about the Demps case or that he was pressured by the state. The trial court denied the defense motion, stating:
Having heard the testimony of the witnesses and having observed the demean-or of each witness while testifying, and further having examined all exhibits filed in evidence, this court, with full and conscious realization of the significance and magnitude of the issues raised herein, finds that the Defendant has failed to prove his claim by any believable evidence.
The trial court’s order is supported by competent substantial evidence, and this Court will not “substitute its judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.” Goldfarb v. Robertson, 82 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla.1955) (citation omitted).
Demps claims that the trial court erred in sustaining the prosecution’s objection to the testimony of a witness regarding a prior consistent statement of Squires. The general rule regarding prior consistent statements, or bolstering testimony, is that such evidence is inadmissible absent impeachment based on an attempt to show a recent fabrication or other reason for the witness’s lack of credibility. See Van Gallon v. State, 50 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1951); Allison v. State, 162 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). The trial court held that the state attorney had not impeached Squires on cross examination in light of the consistency of his testimony. The court allowed the defense to proffer the witness’s excluded testimony. The court then stated, “[h]av-ing made the proffer, the objection is still sustained.” We do not find that reversible error has been demonstrated under the circumstances.
The order of the trial court is affirmed. The stay of execution is vacated.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (63 total)
-
Jones v. State, 709 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1998)…gment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.’ ” Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997) (quoting Demps v. State, 462 So. 2d 1074, 1075 (Fla.1984)). The proper rule of law for determining whether proffered evidence qualifies as “newly discovered” evidence was set forth in Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979): The facts upon which the petition is based must have been u…
-
Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1997)…hows that the trial court properly applied the above law, and its findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. Consequently, we are precluded from substituting our judgment for that of the trial court on this matter. See Demps v. State, 462 So. 2d 1074 (Fla.1984). We find no error. Blanco’s second claim, i.e., that the trial court erred in denying his motion to recuse the judge, is procedurally barred. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(c) (“This rule does not authorize relief based on grounds that could…1 / 2
-
Walls v. State, 926 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2006)…udgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court.’” Blanco v. State, 702 So. 2d 1250, 1252 (Fla.1997) (quoting Demps v. State, 462 So. 2d 1074, 1075 (Fla.1984)). Walls claims that counsel rendered ineffective assistance in at least four separate instances during his trial, including failure to exclude and object to the admission of evidence of a possible sexual battery, failure to object t…
Previewing 3 of 63 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Van Gallon v. State, 50 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 1951)
- Bennie Demps v. State, 395 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1981)
- Bennie E. Demps v. State, 416 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 1982)
- Allison v. State, 162 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- Goldfarb v. Robertson, 82 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1955)
- Demps v. Florida, 454 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1981)
- Mercer v. Missouri, 454 U.S. 933 (U.S. 1981)