Bianchi v. State, 87-1807
| Decision Date | 03 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-1807,87-1807 |
| Citation | 528 So.2d 1309,13 Fla. L. Weekly 1872 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1872 Stephen P. BIANCHI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Aubrey O. Dicus, Jr., of Battaglia, Ross, Hastings, Dicus & Andrews, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Krauss, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Bianchi alleges in this appeal that the trial court erred in permitting a witness to testify at trial to the substance of out-of-court statements made by others to that witness. We agree and reverse.
The state charged Bianchi with second-degree arson for burning or causing to be burned a building containing a window tinting business that was in competition with Bianchi's business. At a jury trial, James Bowman, an arson investigator, was permitted to testify over Bianchi's objection concerning statements made to Bowman.
Bowman testified that during the course of his investigation he interviewed Dawn Blake who told Bowman that she overheard Thong Le (Le), her boyfriend, and Dong Nguyen (Nguyen) discussing plans to set this fire. Bowman further testified that Blake advised him that she overheard Bianchi say that he (Bianchi) wanted the competing business "on the ground or out of business."
Bowman testified that next he interviewed Le. Bowman recounted Le's statements to him which detailed Le's and Nguyen's participation in setting the fire. Bowman further testified that Le informed Bowman that Nguyen told Le that Bianchi would pay them $1,000 for the arson. Bowman then testified that he interviewed Nguyen. Bowman explained to the jury that Nguyen's statements about the incident corroborated Le's account. Bowman testified that Nguyen detailed for him the conversation in which Bianchi initially solicited the arson and offered Nguyen $1,000 to set fire to the competing business.
Nguyen, Le, and Blake all testified at trial for the state. Nguyen testified that Bianchi told him that he wanted the competing business burned and that he wanted Nguyen and Le to do it. Nguyen then repeated the details of Nguyen's and Le's participation in setting the fire. Le also testified regarding his and Nguyen's activities in starting the fire and further testified that Bianchi told a group of people, including Nguyen and Le, that he would pay $1,000 to any person who would burn down the business. Blake testified that Le informed her of Bianchi's $1,000 offer and that she later learned that Nguyen and Le actually set the fire.
Bianchi testified in his own behalf and denied the offense. Bianchi specifically denied that he offered Nguyen money to burn down the competing business or that he solicited Nguyen to set the fire. The jury found Bianchi guilty, and the trial judge denied Bianchi's motion for new trial.
This court recently held that an investigating officer generally cannot testify to a prior consistent statement of a witness. Quiles v. State, 523 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The one exception to this rule is section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985) which provides:
(2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testified at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is:
(b) Consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication....
First, we note that Bowman was allowed to testify to these prior consistent statements of Blake, Le, and Nguyen before they had testified. It would appear that section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lazarowicz v. State, 86-1457
...of only prior consistent statements made before the existence of the facts said to indicate an improper influence. See Bianchi v. State, 528 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Preston v. State, 470 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); McElveen v. State, 415 So.2d 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Jack......
-
Jenkins v. State
...witnesses to show the consistency of the witness' trial testimony. Wise v. State, 546 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Bianchi v. State, 528 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Admissibility of the prior statement is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on......
-
Bullington v. State
..." (first quoting § 90.801(2)(b) ; and then quoting Quiles v. State, 523 So. 2d 1261, 1263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) )); Bianchi v. State, 528 So. 2d 1309, 1311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) ("While section 90.801(2)(b) provides that a prior consistent statement is not objectionable if it is offered to rebut ......
-
Keller v. State
...to Cooper was erroneously admitted before the victim took the stand and was subjected to cross-examination. 5 See also Bianchi v. State, 528 So.2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL Peggy Fox, an employee at Keller's restaurant, testified at trial. She stated Keller objecte......