MICHAEL KENDRICK, 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.
The court held that the cumulative effect of admitting hearsay statements was not harmless error.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced, challenging the admission of several hearsay statements. The state conceded some statements were hearsay but ar…
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
HERSEY, Judge.
Michael 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).
Four 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.
Id. at 439 (citations omitted).
The 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.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dunbar v. State, 230 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…e exception applies to render these statements admissible. Therefore, the State correctly concedes that these statements were inadmissible hearsay. [*12] The harmless error test applies to improperly admitted hearsay evidence. See Kendrick v. State, 632 So. 2d 279, 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). “The harmless error test ... places the burden on the state, as the beneficiary of the error, to prove be-' yond ‘ a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated,…
-
Levon Tindall v. State, 645 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…hearsay testimony was cumulative in nature. We disagree. Juries generally regard police officers as disinterested, objective and highly credible, and thus their testimony is particularly capable of improperly influencing the jury. Kendrick v. State, 632 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The intensive examination of the police officer concerning the substance of what the unidentified witnesses said so pervaded the trial that we can not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer’s hearsay testimony did n…
-
Davis v. State, 694 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ror. Although the testimony was relevant to explain how the defendant came to be arrested, the substance of that testimony was used primarily to corroborate the part of the victim’s testimony impheating the defendant. Similarly in Kendrick v. State, 632 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), we held that the erroneous admission of an officer’s testimony bolstering the testimony of witnesses adverse to the defendant was reversible error because the jury may have regarded the officer as a disinterested, objective and…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- Barnes v. State, 576 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)