Opinion ID: 2543605
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Detective Gammill's Testimony

Text: The State called Detective Gammill to testify and to introduce the tape of Abdool's interview wherein he confessed to detectives. During this interview, while Abdool related the details of his crime, he maintained that he did not mean to do it, and that he was only trying to scare her. Following Abdool's statements to that effect, Detective Gammill made statements indicating that he believed Abdool. For example, at one point Detective Gammill stated, I know, I know, I understand. You were just trying to scare her. And at another point, Detective Gammill said, I know, it sounds like an accident. After the tape concluded, Detective Gammill remained on the stand and the prosecution questioned him about the couple times during the interview where Detective Gammill talked about this being an accident. Then, over defense counsel's objection, the following exchange took place: Prosecutor: Detective Gammill, when you questioned him and stated it was an accident, did you believe it to be an accident at the time? Gammill: No, ma'am. Prosecutor: And why would you say to Mr. Abdool that it was an accident? Gammill: To get him to relax and provide more information. Prosecutor: Is part of your training as a detective, are you trained on interviewing techniques? Gammill: Yes, ma'am. Prosecutor: And is that what you were using when you talked about it being an accident? Gammill: Yes, ma'am. Abdool argues that allowing Detective Gammill's comments was error because they offered an opinion as to Abdool's guilt and that he was unfairly prejudiced by his testimony. We disagree. Without deciding whether the trial judge erred in allowing this testimony, we hold that, even if there was error here, any error is harmless because there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986). First, this testimony did not impermissibly bolster the State's case because even without it, the collective testimony in this case proved that this murder was no accident. Indeed, two other witnesses testified that Abdool tried to hire them to kill Amelia or her baby. In addition, evidence proved that just hours before he killed Amelia, Abdool purchased all the materials he needed, and eventually used, to commit the crime. And Abdool himself admitted wrapping Amelia in duct tape, dousing her with gasoline and setting her on fire. Abdool never even tried to help her. These actions show that Abdool intended to kill Amelia. Thus, there is no reasonable possibility that Detective Gammill's statementthat he only said to Abdool it was an accident, to get him to relax and provide more informationcould have affected the jury's conclusion that what happened in this case was no accident. Accordingly, we reject this claim.