Opinion ID: 1571114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Testimony of Lieutenant Smith

Text: Tumblin contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial made during Lieutenant Dennis Smith's testimony when Smith testified that he told Detective Coleman he thought that Mayes would tell him the truth. As explained below, we agree that a mistrial should have been granted. Tumblin also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Lieutenant Smith to tell the jury about Mayes' prior statement that was consistent with his trial testimony. Although we do not find merit in this claim, we discuss it in some detail because the content and chronology of the testimony of Mayes and Smith are important to our discussion of this issue. Mayes testified first and told the jury that Tumblin had convinced him to participate in the robbery and that once at Jimmy's Auto Clinic, Tumblin robbed Johns and without provocation shot him in the head at close range. Later during that same day of trial, Lieutenant Smith, an officer with the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Department, testified that he arrested Anthony Mayes on July 9, 2004. Mayes was anxious to talk to Smith about the crimes and, even though Smith urged Mayes to wait for the other officers in charge of the investigation, Mayes did recount details of the crime first to Smith. Over objection, the trial court allowed Smith to tell the jury what Mayes told him about the robbery and murder prior to Mayes giving a formal recorded statement on the day he was arrested. Smith testified as follows: Q. [prosecutor]: Lieutenant, go ahead, what did Mr. Mayes tell you? A. [Smith]: He told me about being at a house, I believe, on 14th Street earlier in the day, the day of the homicide with the subject he referred to as Man. He told me that Man washe used the term boosting. I understood that to mean encouraging, persuading him to go do a robbery with Man. That Man and his girlfriend went to Wal-Mart to get a box of ammunition, that they called there first. That Man promised him $300 from the proceeds of the robbery. That he told him thatthat Man told him that if the victim bucked, meaning if he resists or bucked up, that he was gonna cap him. Q. Go ahead. A. And that they went to do the robbery. That he saw Man shoot the victim in the head, told us approximately how far away he was when that occurred. Q. How far away who was? A. Mayes. How far awayhe told us approximately how far away Mayes was and how far away from the victim Man was when he fired the shot. Q. How close did he say Man was to the victim when he shot him? A. As I recall, hehevery close. I think he may have even stuck the gun to his head. This prior statement was consistent with the trial testimony Mayes had given earlier that day. Generally, prior consistent statements are inadmissible to corroborate or bolster a witness's trial testimony because they are usually hearsay, but a prior consistent statement may be admitted as nonhearsay if certain conditions are met. Taylor v. State, 855 So.2d 1, 22-23 (Fla. 2003). The trial court found that Mayes' prior consistent statement in this case was admissible under section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2008). Section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that prior statements that are [c]onsistent with the declarant's testimony and are offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication are not inadmissible hearsay if the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement. § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2008). In reviewing the trial court's decision to admit Mayes' prior consistent statement in this case, our standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Hudson v. State, 992 So.2d 96, 107 (Fla.2008) (stating that the standard of review of a trial court's decision to admit evidence is abuse of discretion), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1360, 173 L.Ed.2d 621 (2009). We conclude that under the circumstances in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Smith to testify about Mayes' prior statement, which was consistent with Mayes' trial testimony. Defense counsel's earlier cross-examination of Mayes first suggested that Mayes' taped statement was only a regurgitation of what Smith had prompted him to say. Other portions of the cross-examination suggested that Mayes was testifying falsely against Tumblin in order to preserve a favorable plea agreement he reached with the State sometime after he gave his initial statements. Defense counsel cross-examined Mayes about the details of his plea agreement and implied that Mayes testified at trial as he did against Tumblin in order to preserve his favorable plea deal and twenty-year sentence. The cross-examination of Mayes impliedly charged that Mayes testified as he did at trial due to improper influence and that his trial testimony was a recent fabrication intended to preserve his plea deal. Both of these grounds are a basis for admission of prior consistent statements under section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes. Thus, the admission of Mayes' prior consistent statement was not an abuse of discretion. See Chamberlain v. State, 881 So.2d 1087 (Fla.2004) (holding prior consistent statement admissible where it was made after the codefendant was arrested but before plea negotiations with the State because defense counsel implied witness was testifying against the defendant to protect a favorable plea deal and sentence); Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493, 500 (Fla.1992) (holding prior consistent statements admissible because [d]efense counsel's references to plea agreements with the state during cross-examination [of the witness] were sufficient to create an inference of improper motive to fabricate); Jackson v. State, 599 So.2d 103, 107 (Fla.1992) (holding that a prior consistent statement was admissible to rebut the inference that the codefendant had a motive to fabricate in light of agreement to testify against Jackson). Although we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Lieutenant Smith to testify about Mayes' prior consistent statement, that testimony plays a part in our separate determination that other testimony given by Smith, for which Tumblin sought a mistrial, requires a new trial. During Lieutenant Smith's direct examination testimony, immediately after Smith recounted Mayes' prior consistent statement to the jury, the following colloquy occurred: Q. [prosecutor to Lt. Smith] Did you then recount that or summarize that statement that he gave you to Detective Coleman and Investigator Hamrick when they returned? A. [Lt. Smith] Yes. Q. Did you  when you recounted this  when you recounted his version, did you add anything or suggest anything he should say in the future? A. Only  no, nothing in particular that he should say. I did assure Detective Coleman in front of Mayes that I felt like Mayes would  would tell him the truth. (Emphasis added.) Tumblin's counsel objected to this comment on Mayes' veracity, and the trial court struck the comment. The trial court agreed with Tumblin that Smith was vouching to another officer that he felt like [Mayes] was going to tell him the truth. [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. Seibert v. State, 923 So.2d 460, 472 (Fla.2006) (quoting Knowles v. State, 632 So.2d 62, 65-66 (Fla.1993)). It is clearly error for one witness to testify as to the credibility of another witness. Acosta v. State, 798 So.2d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Moreover, [i]t is especially harmful for a police witness to give his opinion of a witnesses' [sic] credibility because of the great weight afforded an officer's testimony. Seibert, 923 So.2d at 472 (quoting Page v. State, 733 So.2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)); see also Acosta, 798 So.2d at 810. Police officers, by virtue of their positions, rightfully bring with their testimony an air of authority and legitimacy. A jury is inclined to give great weight to their opinions. ... Bowles v. State, 381 So.2d 326, 328 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); see also Lee v. State, 873 So.2d 582, 583 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (holding police officer's comment that witness was credible and positive in her pretrial lineup identification was error requiring new trial); Olsen v. State, 778 So.2d 422, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) ([I]t is considered especially harmful for a police officer to give his or her opinion of a witness' credibility because of the great weight afforded an officer's testimony.); cf. Perez v. State, 595 So.2d 1096, 1097 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (stating that improper admission of police officer's testimony to bolster the credibility of a witness cannot be deemed harmless). The case of Acosta v. State is illustrative of the similar problem we face in this case. In Acosta, the district court reversed the conviction for uttering a forged instrument and grand theft because of a statement by a police officer witness that bolstered the credibility of a key state's witness, Sarah Riley, who had been involved with Acosta in the crimes. 798 So.2d at 809. When the officer was asked why a handwriting sample was not taken from Riley, he responded, Up until that point, everything Sarah Riley told me appeared to be truthful. Id. Acosta's motion for mistrial was denied but the court gave a curative instruction to the jury to disregard the comment. Id. The Fourth District held that it is clear error for one witness to offer his personal view on the credibility of a fellow witness, especially where the witness offering the view is a police officer, because of the great weight accorded an officer's testimony. Id. at 810. In reversing, the district court held: Riley was the key witness for the state, and the state's case hinged primarily on her credibility. She was an admitted participant in the crime, but was not charged. She testified that she had not, but that the appellant had forged the check. The state's handwriting expert could only corroborate her testimony to the extent he believed it was probable that it was appellant's handwriting. He found significant similarities between the signature on the check and appellant's handwriting, and dissimilarities which could not be accounted for. This expert has various classifications which he uses to explain the strength of his opinion, and this classification was third from the strongest. Because Riley's testimony was crucial and the defense's main emphasis was on her lack of credibility, we cannot agree with the State that the error was harmless or that it was cured by the instruction. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial. Id. Similarly, in the instant case, the trial court sustained the objection, struck the comment, and later gave a curative instruction. [7] Even so, as we explain below, we conclude that the curative measures did not erase the taint of the testimony and, as a result, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Tumblin's motion for mistrial. The giving of a curative instruction will often obviate the necessity of a mistrial. However, there are some instances in which the prejudice is so great that it is impossible `to unring the bell.' Graham v. State, 479 So.2d 824, 825-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (citation omitted). [T]his Court reviews a trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial under an abuse of discretion standard. Salazar v. State, 991 So.2d 364, 371 (Fla. 2008), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1347, 173 L.Ed.2d 614 (2009); see also Perez v. State, 919 So.2d 347, 363 (Fla.2005); Floyd v. State, 913 So.2d 564, 576 (Fla.2005). The motion should be granted only when it is necessary to ensure that the defendant receives a fair trial. Salazar, 991 So.2d at 372 (quoting Cole v. State, 701 So.2d 845, 853 (Fla. 1997)). In the present case, as the trial court noted: Other than Anthony Mayes, is there any evidence that Alwin Tumblin shot Jimmy Johns? The answer is no, it's all circumstantial and nobody puts him on the scene, nobody sees what happened, nobody saw him with a gun that day, nobody said he drove over there that day. Everything that places him at the scene and committing that murder comes from Anthony Mayes. The trial court also questioned whether the State could prove premeditation without Mayes' testimony. Smith's testimony concerning Mayes' truthfulness occurred after the jury heard Mayes' version of events, which also matched Mayes' prior consistent statement related by Smith to the jury. Because Mayes gave the same version of events to Lieutenant Smith informally that he testified to at trial, Smith's vouching for his truthfulness could be reasonably inferred by the jury to extend to Mayes' veracity at trial. Under these circumstances and the facts of this case, in which Mayes gave the only eyewitness testimony that Tumblin committed the murder and did so in a premeditated manner, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for mistrial. We also find that Mayes' critical eyewitness testimony in the guilt phase was an essential component of the evidence of aggravation relied upon by the State and the court in the penalty phase. The trial court found that the murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner (CCP) based in large part on Mayes' testimony that Tumblin took a gun from the waistband of his pants and coldly aimed it at Johns, asking, What you think about this? This evidence came solely from Mayes. The trial court also relied on Mayes' testimony that Tumblin convinced him to commit the robbery and be a lookout. Again, this fact came only from Mayes. In finding CCP, the trial court also relied on Mayes' testimony that on the way to Jimmy's Auto Clinic, Tumblin told Mayes he would kill everybody that exists there. The trial court noted evidence from Mayes that he did not know where the robbery would occur and Tumblin had chosen the target business in advance. The trial court also cited testimony that came only from Mayes that Johns did not resist in any way before being shot. The heavy reliance by the trial court on testimony given by Mayes in establishing CCP is summed up in the following excerpt from the sentencing order: In the days, hours and minutes preceding this robbery and murder, the Defendant procured a firearm, obtained ammunition, secured an accomplice (Anthony Mayes), stayed at his sister's house in Fort Pierce the night before, drove to Jimmy's Auto Clinic with Anthony Mayes proclaiming that he would commit murder in the process, found Jimmy Johns alone at Jimmy's Auto Clinic, robbed him without incident and then shot him in the head, execution-style. It is noteworthy that neither the Defendant nor Anthony Mayes attempted to disguise their identities. Further, the Defendant chose to drive to and flee from the murder scene in an emphatically distinct, yellow taxicab-looking car. Also, the Defendant engaged the victim in a conversation about a car part before asking Mr. Johns where the money is. In this otherwise well-planned and orchestrated robbery the Defendant took no precautions to prevent or minimize his identification by any would-be victim. To be sure, he had no intentions of leaving any survivors as further evidenced by his statement to Anthony Mayes before the robbery and murder [that he would kill anyone who exists there]. Thus, it can be seen that Anthony Mayes' testimonyand his credibility before the jury and the courtwas instrumental in the jury finding Tumblin guilty of first-degree premeditated and felony murder and in the trial court finding that the murder was cold, calculated, and premeditated. Because Lieutenant Smith improperly volunteered testimony that essentially vouched for Mayes' credibility in a manner that tied his credibility both to the version of events Mayes gave to officers prior to trial and to the same version of events he gave the jury during trial, we conclude that Tumblin did not receive a fair trial. Although the trial court correctly recognized the error, struck the testimony, and later gave a curative instruction, these corrective measures could not erase the inescapable impression upon the jury that Lieutenant Smith believed the version of events testified to by Mayes was truthful. Under the facts and circumstances present in this case, we find that Smith's testimony that he believed Mayes would tell the truth deprived Tumblin of a fair trial. We are thus constrained to reverse and remand for a new trial. This reversal and remand for a new trial obviates the need for us to reach any of the penalty phase claims or the issue of proportionality in this case.