BOBBY KENNEDY BARNES, 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.
Bobby Kennedy Barnes appeals his conviction for aggravated battery on the grounds that a detective testified to the victim's prior consistent statement, which improperly bolstered the victim's trial testimony. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded because the admission of this prior consistent statement through a highly credible police officer constituted reversible error.
The admission of the detective's testimony regarding the victim's prior consistent statement was clearly error and constituted reversible error. The error could not be found harmless under the standards set forth in State v. DiGuilio.
[1] A witness's prior consistent statement may not be used to bolster his trial testimony.
[2] The danger of improperly influencing a jury is particularly grave when a police officer, perceived as disinterested and objective, corroborates a witness's testimony thro…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A witness's prior consistent statement may not be used to bolster his trial testimony.”
Establishes the fundamental legal rule violated in this case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarnes was charged with robbery and aggravated battery. At trial, the extent of his involvement was disputed. A detective testified over a hearsay obj…
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 State V. Diguilio Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a conviction of aggravated battery. Appellant, Bobby Kennedy Barnes, was charged by information with robbery and aggravated battery. At trial, the extent of his involvement in the incident out of which the charges arose was the subject of conflicting testimony.
A detective who interviewed the victim at the hospital testified over a hearsay objection. The substance of his testimony corroborated that portion of the victim’s testimony which implicated appellant. This was clearly error. A witness’s prior consistent statement may not be used to bolster his trial testimony. Lamb v. State, 357 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Roti v. State, 334 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). The rationale prohibiting the use of prior consistent statements is to prevent “putting a cloak of credibility” on the witness’s testimony. Brown v. State, 344 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). 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.
Perez v. State, 371 So. 2d 714, 716-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Accord Carroll v. State, 497 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 511 So. 2d 297 (Fla.1987).
The state argues that the testimony came in for the purpose of explaining how appellant came to be arrested and therefore there was no error. This is unavailing in light of Harris v. State, 544 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (en banc).
We reject the state’s attempt to distinguish Lamb v. State, 357 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) (police officer repeated what victim, only witness, told him regarding the assault; testimony inadmissible; reversible error) and Brown v. State, 344 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (police officer testified before victim and victim’s mother; he testified as to what mother told him victim had told her regarding the crime; reversible error).
Further, we are unable to conclude that the error was harmless under the guidelines set out by our supreme court in State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further appropriate proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY, C.J., POLEN, J., and JAMES H. WALDEN, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reyes v. State, 580 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…itted.2, 3 Stamper v. State, 576 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Lazarowicz v. State, 561 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Holliday v. State, 389 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Perez v. State, 371 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); accord Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 439 (Fla.. 4th DCA 1991); see also Lamb v. State, 357 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Brown v. State, 344 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). 2. Both of the Suttons were repeatedly permitted to state that C.H. “would never lie” and was “a truthful child.” Th…
-
Dorvil Charlot v. State, 679 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…victim told him was in narrative form and far more detailed than the testimony of the victim’s friends. More importantly, the detailed prior consistent and corroborating statement came from a police officer. As this court stated in Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 439, 439 (Fla. 4th DCA1991): 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 testimo…
-
Elysee v. State, 920 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…indicated beyond any question that she had engaged in reflective thought. Allowing the officer to bolster the credibility of the victim, who was the only witness to the crime, with her prior consistent statements, was prejudicial. Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We must accordingly reverse. Because this case must be retried, we address the second issue, which is whether the court erred in allowing the victim’s mother to testify as to her observations of the victim on the days following…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Bartelmy Harris v. State, 544 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Perez v. State, 371 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Carroll v. State, 497 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Brown v. State, 344 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Roti v. State, 334 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Lamb v. State, 357 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)