Opinion ID: 1881447
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony of Prison Chaplain

Text: We next consider whether the trial court allowed the State to improperly bolster testimony of Zientek through the alleged hearsay testimony of the prison chaplain. As is further detailed in the facts, Zientek testified as to conversations he had with Overton relating to the crimes. Apparently, at some point during his direct examination, Zientek became emotional and his eyes teared up while describing some of the materials he reviewed. He indicated during direct examination that when he saw one of the autopsy pictures he vomited and that he was pretty freaked out about the whole thing.... It was bothering me. I wanted to get a hold of the chaplain.... During cross-examination, defense counsel asked: And in fact, you, before when you were looking disturbed and shedding tears, that was an act, wasn't it? Defense counsel further attacked Zientek's testimony that he had vomited when he saw some of the pictures shown to him by Overton and that instead he thanked Overton for showing him the pictures and other materials. The State then presented the jail chaplain, Judith Remley. Defense counsel objected on the basis that this witness's testimony was improper vouching and ... not relevant. The prosecutor argued that Chaplain Remley's testimony would solely relate to Mr. Zientek's demeanor when he spoke to her, and the record reveals that this is exactly what occurred. Specifically, during Ms. Remley's brief direct examination, she was asked: What was his [Zientek's] demeanor when he came to talk to you about that conservation? She replied, He was very upset. He was crying. He was devastated. First, we conclude that the issue is properly preserved because we believe the trial court was fairly apprized of the relief sought and the grounds for the objection. See Filan v. State, 768 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (quoting section 924.051(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1999)). Turning to the merits, we decline to address whether the chaplain's testimony was inadmissible hearsay introduced for purposes of bolstering Zientek's credibility because we conclude that any error which may have occurred was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186, 198 (Fla.1997) (holding that improper admission of prior consistent statement is subject to harmless error analysis); Anderson v. State, 574 So.2d 87, 93 (Fla.1991). In this case, Zientek's testimony that Overton admitted committing the crimes, which was presumably bolstered by the chaplain's hearsay statement, was not the sole evidence identifying the defendant as the perpetrator. The DNA evidence, consisting of the results from two separate tests, identified Overton as the person who committed these crimes. Overton's involvement in these murders was further corroborated by the other cell-mate to whom Overton confessed the crimes, Guy William Green. Moreover, the jury had the benefit of seeing Zientek testify and, therefore, with or without the chaplain's testimony, they were able to assess his credibility. In sum, we find no harmful error in the trial court's admission of the chaplain's testimony.