VAN GALLON
v.
STATE
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.
The Supreme Court of Florida reversed a second-degree murder conviction because the trial court improperly admitted a witness's prior written statement as substantive evidence. The court found no sufficient indication of impeachment to justify admitting the statement under the exception to the rule against corroborating testimony with prior consistent statements.
No, it was improper. The general rule prohibits corroborating a witness's testimony with a prior consistent statement, and the exception for rebutting claims of recent fabrication was not met by the record.
“We recognize the rule that a witness's testimony may not be corroborated by his own prior consistent statement and the exception that such a statement may become relevant if an attempt is made to show a recent fabrication.”
This quote states the general rule and the relevant exception regarding the admissibility of prior consistent statements.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a murder trial, the prosecution introduced the written statement of its principal witness, who was present and testifying. The defense objected…
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 Prior Consistent Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
Richard W. Ervin, Atty. Gen., and Murray Sams, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. THOMAS, Justice.
At the trial of appellant, which culminated in a judgment of his guilt of murder in the second degree, the court allowed in evidence the written statement of the state's principal witness, made soon after the fatal shooting, although the witness was then present and testifying. The question arises whether the effect of the ruling was the bolstering of the testimony of the witness, which under the general rule may not be done in this way, or whether such procedure was justified because there was sufficient indication of impeachment by the appellant on the ground that there had been some late fabrication to meet the exigencies of the case.
We recognize the rule that a witness's testimony may not be corroborated by his own prior consistent statement and the exception that such a statement may become relevant if an attempt is made to show a recent fabrication. The exception is based on the theory that once the witness's story is undertaken, by imputation, insinuation, or direct evidence, to be assailed as a recent fabrication, the admission of an earlier consistent statement rebuts the suggestion of improper motive and the challenge of his integrity.
But we have carefully read that part of the record on which the state relies *883 to justify the introduction by the state of the written statement and have not found there a sufficient showing, even of insinuation, to warrant the application of the exception; so we conclude that the rule applied and that the overruling of the defendant's objection to the statement was error.
The remaining question deals with the propriety of permitting the statement to be taken by the jury to their room when they retired to consider the case, but we do not feel obliged to answer it because it is not shown clearly in the record that this was done. The only evidence of it is an affidavit filed as an appendix to appellant's brief. We cannot sanction this method of supplementing a record. Reversed.
SEBRING, C.J., and TERRELL and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (38 total)
-
Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992)…sion of the child’s prior consistent statements would contravene the established rule of evidence that prior consistent statements of a witness are inadmissible to corroborate or bolster the witness’s trial testimony. See, e.g., Van Gallon v. State, 50 So. 2d 882, 882 (Fla.1951); Wise v. State, 546 So. 2d 1068, 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 554 So. 2d 1169 (Fla.1989); 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 472, at 349-350 (1957). Although Pardo’s argument has merit, his position runs counter to the plain language of th…
-
Oba Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1997)…generally inadmissible to corroborate or bolster a witness’ trial testimony.” Rodriguez v. State, 609 So. 2d 493, 499 (Fla.1992); Jackson v. State, 498 So. 2d 906, 909 (Fla.1986); Parker v. State, 476 So. 2d 134, 137 (Fla.1985); Van Gallon v. State, 50 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1951). Since such statements are usually hearsay, “they are inadmissible as substantive evidence unless they qualify under an exception to the rule excluding hearsay.” Rodriguez, 609 So. 2d at 500 (citing Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence,…
-
Kelley v. State, 486 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1986)…et concerning the laundry list of crimes for which he had been given immunity in return for his testimony against Kelley. Appellant does not deny that the jury was left with an impression of Sweet’s improper motive to fabricate, Van Gallon v. State, 50 So. 2d 882 (Fla.1951), but argues that Sweet’s statements as reported by Namia were not sufficiently consistent with Sweet’s testimony at trial to be properly admissible under section 90.-801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1983). While keeping in mind that “a failu…
Previewing 3 of 38 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)