Opinion ID: 1882654
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issue 3. improper bolstering

Text: In his next argument, Seibert asserts that the State improperly bolstered the testimony of Navarres' alibi witness and that the trial court erred in denying Seibert's motion for a mistrial on this basis. Seibert claims that the State's questioning at trial of MBPD Detective Jaccarino, who was co-lead investigator in this case, was a ground for mistrial because the questioning was an attempt to bolster the testimony of Navarres' alibi. However, the trial court sustained Seibert's objections to the questions, and the detective was never given an opportunity to answer the questions. Q So, is it fair to say you have to use your skills as an investigator and your skills as a person to decide whether you are going to accept what they say, or whether you have to go further and investigate further what they have to say? MR. HOULIHAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. BY MS. SEFF: Q When you did your investigation, an [sic] upon learning the information from the Korkours, and you talked to Ace Green, and you saw the crime scene, and all these other things, was there anything that leads you to believe that you should do more in terms of Danny Mavarres Korkour? MR. HOULIHAN: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. [A]llowing one witness to offer a personal view on the credibility of a fellow witness is an invasion of the province of the jury to determine a witness's credibility. Knowles v. State, 632 So.2d 62, 65-66 (Fla.1993). Moreover, [i]t is especially harmful for a police witness to give his opinion of a witnesses' credibility because of the great weight afforded an officer's testimony. Page v. State, 733 So.2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). While we recognize the problems caused by allowing the bolstering of witnesses at trial, we affirm the denial of the motion for mistrial because the trial court sustained the defense's objections to the questions. No actual bolstering occurred because the officer did not answer the questions, and thus the instant facts are distinguishable from those of the cases cited by Seibert. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 873 So.2d 582, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (The defense objected to the introduction of this testimony and moved to strike the testimony. The trial court overruled the objection.); Olsen v. State, 778 So.2d 422, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (Defense counsel objected and attempted to educate the prosecutor on this subject; however, the prosecutor was bent on pursuing this improper line of questioning. The trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor and the officer to continue.); Page, 733 So.2d at 1081 (Defense counsel objected and argued that this testimony improperly bolstered the credibility of Pyrzyk and moved to strike the last question and answer. The objection was overruled and the motion was denied.).