McDonald v. State, 90-235
| Decision Date | 11 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-235,90-235 |
| Citation | 578 So.2d 371,16 Fla. L. Weekly 986 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 986 Floyd McDONALD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Barbara M. Linthicum, Public Defender and Lynn A. Williams, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Laura Rush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Floyd McDonald has appealed from a conviction for sexual battery. He alleges that the trial court erred in admitting, over hearsay objection, prior consistent statements of the victim, that the trial court prejudiced his right to a fair trial by its rebuke of defense counsel during closing argument, and that the prosecutor improperly commented during closing argument on the defense's failure to call a witness. We affirm as to all issues.
The victim testified at trial that McDonald forced his way into her apartment, where she lived with her young child, and committed sexual battery on her. She stated that, immediately thereafter, she fled to a friend's apartment, where she blurted out a description of the incident consistent with her trial testimony. Approximately one hour later, she related the same story to the investigating police officer. The friend and the officer were allowed to testify to the story told them by the victim, over defense objection that it was inadmissible hearsay. McDonald later testified in his own defense that the victim had consented to sex.
During defense counsel's closing argument, he made a statement to the effect that McDonald would not have committed the sexual battery, knowing that a black man charged with rape of a white woman could not get a fair jury in Jacksonville. The state objected and, out of the hearing of the jury, the trial judge warned defense counsel against further such argument, saying that it was improper and impugned the integrity of the court and the jury. However, defense counsel immediately resumed the same line of argument, elaborating that, because of societal attitudes toward a white woman having sex with a black man, the man would never be believed. The state again objected, and the court addressed the jury as follows:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the remarks of counsel are entirely inappropriate. This Court is color blind. This court believes that we have a fair jury.
You were sworn to try the case on the facts. The Court believes that this attorney, and I have already admonished him at the bench, is simply trying to prejudice your thinking.
You will please disregard his remarks and try this case as you are sworn to do solely on the evidence that's presented to you and my instructions, not by prejudicial remarks of either counsel made to you in their closing argument.
Counsel, if you pursue this line I have already admonished you, and I will admonish you further. I want you to understand that clearly.
Defense counsel then proceeded with his closing, next pointing out that the state had not called the victim's young child as a witness. Despite evidence that the child had slept through the incident, defense counsel posited that it was "entirely possible the child saw the whole thing," and yet the state had not brought the child in for whatever information might be gained. The state responded in its closing argument that the public defender had subpoena powers equal to the state's, and that "if the child would help the defense case, [the child] would have been here." The court overruled the defense objection that the state was attempting to shift the burden of proof, after the state responded that the defense had opened the door to the remark. The jury later found McDonald guilty.
The testimony of the victim's friend and the investigating officer as to the victim's version of events clearly constituted prior consistent statements of the victim. Section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1989) provides that such statements are not hearsay "if the declarant testifies at the trial ... and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of improper influence, motive or recent fabrication."
In Jenkins v. State, 547 So.2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), the court held that, because a witness' credibility is always an issue at trial, a general attack on that credibility during cross-examination does not fulfill the requirement of "an express or implied charge of improper influence, motive or recent fabrication." Jenkins at 1021. In this case, while cross-examination of the victim did point out inconsistencies in her pre-trial and trial versions of events, there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deparvine v. State
...that wife's response to officer's question, "Who jumped out of the back window?," was a spontaneous statement), and McDonald v. State, 578 So.2d 371, 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that in a sexual battery case, the victim's statements to her friend, made immediately after the incident, w......
-
Ibar v. State
...question "Who jumped out of the back window?," which identified the defendant, was a spontaneous statement); McDonald v. State, 578 So.2d 371, 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that the victim's statement to her friend in a sexual battery case immediately after the incident was admissible as......
-
Lawyer v. State, 91-2768
...the witnesses referred to by the prosecutor were not witnesses who would be assumed to be favorable to the defendant. McDonald v. State, 578 So.2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), cannot be reconciled with what we believe to be the correct rule, because in that case--an alleged rape in which the de......
-
Conley v. State
...from a victim's previous silence about a sexual assault. Custer v. State, 159 Fla. 574, 34 So.2d 100, 106 (1947); McDonald v. State, 578 So.2d 371, 373-74 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Monarca v. State, 412 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Lyles v. State, 412 So.2d 458, 459 (Fla.2d DCA 1982). Whi......
-
Trial and evidence
...his will during telephone calls; such evidence was admissible either as spontaneous statement or excited utterance); McDonald v. State, 578 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (testimony of friend of victim of sexual battery as to victim’s version of events was admissible under first-complaint e......