Opinion ID: 1818171
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Improper Self-Bolstering Witness Testimony

Text: Next, Salazar argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it overruled his objection to Detective Brock's testimony that he was trying to find the truth in his investigation. Salazar claims that, by making that statement, Detective Brock improperly bolstered his own credibility. We affirm the trial court's ruling. During the guilt phase of Salazar's trial, Detective Brock testified that he conducted an extensive investigation, interviewing between fifty and one hundred people. Regarding Detective Brock's investigation, the following dialogue between Brock and the State transpired: [By the Prosecutor] Q: Detective Brock, I think you testified you were in the Miami area, you were in the Okeechobee area, obviously the Fort Drum area, other parts of Okeechobee maybe. You talked to people in Melbourne? A: Yes. Q: Your investigation was physically wide ranging, and wide ranging in terms of the number of people you talked to? A: Yes. Q: Okay. It's appropriate for a homicide case; right? A. Absolutely. Q: Okay. No rush to judgment? A: Right. Q: No sudden  no quick once-over in a homicide case? A: Just trying to find the truth. Q: Yes, sir. [Defense Counsel]: Objection, Your Honor. Can we approach? The Court: No, I'll overrule the objection. (Emphasis added.) Later, while Brock was still on the stand but outside the jury's presence, defense counsel sought to clarify its objection and moved for a mistrial, citing Acosta v. State, 798 So.2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The trial court denied the motion for mistrial, explaining that Detective Brock merely asserted that his goal was to find the truth. By contrast, the detective's comment in Acosta expressed an opinion that what he found in his investigation was the truth. The trial court also stated that in context, Detective Brock's statement was relevant to contradict a potential defense that law enforcement authorities rushed to decide that Salazar was the main perpetrator. We review the trial court's ruling for abuse of discretion. As we recently stated: This Court reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. A judge's discretion is limited by the rules of evidence, Johnston v. State, 863 So.2d 271, 278 (Fla.2003), and by the principles of stare decisis. Cf. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla.1980) (Judges dealing with cases essentially alike should reach the same result. Different results reached from substantially the same facts comport with neither logic nor reasonableness.). A trial court ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion if it is based on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990). Johnson v. State, 969 So.2d 938, 949 (Fla. 2007), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2056, 170 L.Ed.2d 799 (2008). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Salazar's objection and motion for mistrial. As the trial court correctly noted at sidebar, Acosta is distinguishable because Detective Brock merely stated that he was trying to find the truth in his investigation; he did not claim that what he found was the truth. Also, Detective Brock's credibility was not central to the State's case. Cf. Olivera v. State, 813 So.2d 996, 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that it was harmful error for a key State witness to insinuate that he had passed a lie detector test where the defense thoroughly impeached the witness's credibility reasoning that unless the jury believed that he had passed the lie detector test, it is hard to fathom that his testimony would have led to the defendant's conviction as there were no other witnesses or physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime). Detective Brock expressed no opinion as to the credibility of other witnesses. Cf. Acosta, 798 So.2d at 810 (holding that it was harmful error for a police officer to vouch for the credibility of another witness); Paul v. State, 790 So.2d 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (remanding for reconsideration of whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to State investigator's comments on the truthfulness of the child sexual abuse victim). Further, Brock's testimony was not offered as evidence of his unimpeached good character for veracity. Cf. Whitted v. State, 362 So.2d 668 (Fla.1978) (holding that it was error to allow evidence of a witness's good character for veracity unless it has been impeached but declining to express an opinion as to whether error was reversible). Rather, the statement was made in response to the State's questioning regarding whether Brock conducted a thorough investigation and whether law enforcement authorities rushed to judgment against Salazar. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling on Salazar's objection to Detective Brock's testimony that he was trying to find the truth in his investigation. [5]