Opinion ID: 1664073
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Challenge Mrs. Brown's Testimony

Text: Spann also contends counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge Mrs. Brown's videotaped testimony by showing that she had memory problems. While it is clear that Brown has some type of memory problem, Spann has failed to demonstrate any prejudice based on this fact. During her direct examination, Brown said Spann was not living in the house behind her home. However, on cross-examination, she admitted that Spann could have been living there without her knowledge. When asked whether Spann stayed at her house or visited her on the day of the crime, she responded, Not that I know, sir. Subsequently, during cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Brown's knowledge of the little house in the back part of her property. When defense counsel asked Brown whether Spann was living in that little house behind her house, she responded, No, he sure wasn't. If he was back there, I did not know it. When asked again whether she knew if he was living in the little house, she again testified, No, I don't know it. Brown also admitted that somebody could come through the gate in front of her house and go around the side of her house to the little house in the back, and she would not know. However, on redirect, Brown testified that she never leaves her house and usually sits on her porch outside the house all day, and that during the month of November 1997, she never saw Spann coming in and out of the backyard. In addition, defense counsel testified that he did not need to establish that Brown was senile or suffering from dementia because she could not say one way or the other whether Spann was on the property on November 14. Counsel believed that her testimony did not foreclose Spann's alibi, especially considering her admission that, despite her testimony that she was on the porch outside her house, someone could be on the property without her knowledge. We find that counsel was not deficient because a review of counsel's cross-examination of Brown demonstrates that counsel made an effort to neutralize Brown's testimony by showing that Brown did not know whether Spann was living in the back part of the property or whether Spann was home at any time on the day of the crimes. Thus, counsel indirectly proved that Brown did have a memory problem. Conducting a medical follow-up would have done nothing more than reiterate the point that Spann could have been on the property on the day of the crime without Brown's knowledge, a point that was in fact made. Spann also asserts that the prosecutor improperly bolstered Brown's testimony during closing arguments by comparing her to his late grandmother who never forgot or missed anything that occurred in the neighborhood because she was always sitting on her front porch. Spann argues that in light of counsel's failure to present Leo's alibi testimony, the prosecutor's statement prejudiced the outcome of the guilt phase. The trial court found the prosecutor's argument to be fair comment because the defense made Spann's whereabouts an issue in closing argument by arguing that Spann was at Brown's house at the time of Perron's murder. The trial court further found that the comment did not amount to improper bolstering because taken in context, the prosecutor's comment was not vouching for the credibility of Brown's testimony or placing the prestige of the government behind Brown, but was merely a comment to the jury to use their common sense in considering the plausibility of Spann's statement to the police. We agree that the prosecutor's statement was not improper bolstering. Improper bolstering occurs when the State places the prestige of the government behind the witness or indicates that information not presented to the jury supports the witness's testimony. Hutchinson v. State, 882 So.2d 943, 953 (Fla.2004) (citing Gorby v. State, 630 So.2d 544, 547 (Fla.1993)). A review of the record demonstrates that the State was not placing the prestige of the government behind Brown's testimony, nor was the State relying on anything outside of the record to support Brown's statements. In his statement to the police, Spann stated that he was at Brown's house during the crimes, and that no one saw him while he was home. During cross-examination, Brown said she was not working in November 1997, and said she spent her days sitting on the porch. While she indicated she never saw Spann coming or going to the backyard on the day of the crimes, she acknowledged that someone could have come without her being aware of that fact. During closing arguments, defense counsel reiterated that Spann was at Brown's house during the abduction, murder, and bank robbery. As a result of the evidence presented, the prosecutor was attempting to demonstrate to the jury that it is not likely that Spann could have come home in the afternoon on the day of the crime and not have been seen by Brown, who sat on her porch all day. Because the prosecutor was making a fair comment based on the evidence presented at trial, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to object. See Mungin v. State, 932 So.2d 986, 997 (Fla.2006) (finding that defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to object because none of the comments were improper). Accordingly, Spann fails to demonstrate ineffectiveness under Strickland. We affirm the trial court's denial of relief on this claim.