PAUL CARDALI, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Paul Cardali appealed his convictions for second-degree murder and kidnapping. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed his convictions, rejecting arguments regarding the admissibility of a prior consistent statement and the applicability of Coney v. State to his trial.
The trial court properly admitted the prior consistent statement because the defendant's cross-examination regarding the plea agreement constituted an implied charge of improper influence or recent fabrication under Florida Statute § 90.801(2)(b), and Coney v. State did not apply because the defendant's trial predated the effective date of that decision.
[1] A prior consistent statement is admissible when a witness's testimony is attacked by an implied charge of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication, even if the s…
[2] A prior consistent statement is admissible to rehabilitate a witness whose testimony has been attacked by an implied charge of improper influence, motive, or recent fabri…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 defendant's extensive cross-examination of the witness (the former co-defendant) regarding his plea agreement amounted to an "implied charge against him of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication," § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995), and the prior consistent statement was therefore properly introduced”
Establishes the legal basis for admitting the prior consistent statement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCardali was convicted of second-degree murder and kidnapping. During trial, the defendant cross-examined a former co-defendant witness regarding a ple…
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 Prospective Application Of Judicial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The opinion previously filed in this cause, on November 6, 1996, is withdrawn and the following is substituted in its stead.
The defendant appeals his convictions and sentences for second-degree murder and kidnapping. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Regarding issue number one, the trial court properly admitted the prior consistent statement. In our view the defendant’s extensive cross-examination of the witness (the former co-defendant) regarding his plea agreement amounted to an “implied charge against him of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication,” § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1995), and the prior consistent statement was therefore properly introduced. See Chandler v. State, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S649, - So. 2d -, 1997 WL 633729 (Fla. Oct. 16, 1997). Defendant argues that the case of Cortes v. State, 670 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), requires exclusion where, as here, the defendant asserts (a) there were two separate prior events giving rise to improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication, and (b) the prior consistent statement was given after the first, but before the second, of these prior events. See id. at 121. We conclude that the Florida Supreme Court decision in Chandler has sub silentio overruled Cortes’ analysis of the admissibility of prior consistent statements. Here the cross-examination of the witness implied that the witness had received a favorable plea agreement from the State and would therefore be motivated to testify favorably for the State. Defendant “could not thereafter prevent the State from rehabilitating [the witness’s] testimony by urging that another motive to fabricate existed earlier.” Chandler, 22 Fla. L. Weekly at S653, - So. 2d at -, 1997 WL 633729.
Regarding issue number two, as to whether or not Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 315, 133 L.Ed.2d 218 (1995), should apply in connection with the defendant’s physical absence during a sidebar conference where juror challenges were exercised, we find that the Coney decision does not apply to the instant case where this Court has held that “Coney is inapplicable as its application is prospective only, 653 So. 2d at 1013, and [the defendant’s] trial took place prior to the effective date of Coney.” Henderson v. State, 679 So. 2d 805, 808 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(footnote omitted), affirmed, 698 So. 2d 1205 (Fla.1997).1 As to the appellant’s remaining points, we find them to be without merit and, accordingly, do not specifically address them herein.
Affirmed.
. Similarly, in the instant case, the defendant’s trial occurred several months prior to the effective date of the Coney decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reid v. State, 799 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…he trial court properly permitted the State to use Windes’ deposition during its redirect of Windes in order to rebut the implication that Windes’ testimony was the product “of improper influence, motive or recent fabrication.” See Cardali v. State, 701 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). Appellant next argues that the prosecutor improperly bolstered the testimony of Fred North, Frederick Shots and Roosevelt Reid by playing the video tapes maintained by Sears during their testim…
Authorities Cited
- Coney v. State, 653 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 1995)
- Henderson v. State, 679 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Henderson v. State, 698 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 1997)
- Balduino Cortes v. State, 670 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)