Opinion ID: 1110208
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Admission of Recorded Hearsay

Text: Pagan also argues the trial court erred in improperly allowing the State to introduce a prior consistent statement in the form of a tape recording of a conversation between Antonio Quezada and Keith Jackson. We deny relief on the claim because the evidence was admissible to rebut the defense claim of recent fabrication. Generally, prior consistent statements are not admissible to bolster a witness's testimony at trial. See Chandler v. State, 702 So.2d 186 (Fla.1997). In order to be admissible, prior consistent statements, like other hearsay statements, must qualify under a hearsay exception. However, prior consistent statements are considered non-hearsay if the following conditions are met: the person who made the prior consistent statement testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning that statement; and the statement is offered to `rebut an express or implied charge ... of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication.' Id. at 197-98 (quoting Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493, 499 (Fla.1992)) (quoting section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1989)). The trial court permitted certain portions of a recorded conversation between Keith Jackson and Antonio Quezada to be played in court following direct examination of Quezada. The police-orchestrated recording was made on March 5, 1993, in Keith Jackson's girlfriend's car and with his cooperation. The portions played at trial reflect Quezada agreeing he dropped Graham and Pagan off near the Jones residence, that they did not get anything from the home invasion, that Graham had on a pair of latex gloves while Alex wore regular gloves, and that Graham wore an army jacket. The prosecutor offered this statement to show that Quezada's trial testimony was not influenced by a subsequent plea agreement [15] he entered into with the State on November 17, 1993, or by the media. This was done to rebut the defense attorney's attempts to show that Quezada was influenced by these events. For instance, Pagan's attorney questioned Quezada about his motivation in testifying and his belief that sometimes lying is alright to save one's life. This questioning followed earlier admissions by Quezada that he had lied to the police for months after the incident in an attempt to maintain his loyalty to his close friend Pagan. He also admitted to lying under oath in a proceeding in which he tried to obtain a protective order against police who had allegedly assaulted him. The trial court did not err in admitting the recorded statement.