GIBSON v. STATE (2021)

Appellant, LaDonte Gibson, appeals his convictions for attempted first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and kidnapping to facilitate the commission of first-degree murder. Mr. Gibson claims the trial court erred in admitting a prior consistent statement. Because the statement was properly admitted, we affirm.

Mr. Gibson and his co-conspirators hatched a plan to commit murder. They brought along a firearm, tarp, hand saw, and zip ties to carry out their plans. They kidnapped the victim on the night he attended a candlelight vigil for a friend who had been murdered. They kidnapped him at gun point, secured him with zip ties, and began driving to a remote location. The victim testified that Mr. Gibson and the others began discussing the best place to kill him. As they drove, though still zip tied, the victim grabbed the gun when it was momentarily lifted from his head. A struggle ensued and a shot was fired. The driver stopped the car. The victim briefly gained control of the gun and removed the magazine and round from the chamber. The victim was pulled from the car. He was able to conceal the magazine in the high grass on the side of the road. He was then beaten with the gun, kicked, and stomped. During a moment of distraction, the victim escaped into the woods. Mr. Gibson and the others drove off and left the victim in the woods when they were unable to find him in the dark. The victim, beaten and still secured with zip ties, crawled to a nearby home and summoned help.

At trial, Mr. Gibson attacked this testimony suggesting the victim fabricated Mr. Gibson's involvement. Mr. Gibson suggested the victim sought revenge for an incident that occurred months after the charged conduct but before the trial. To address the suggestion of recent fabrication or improper motive, the State then elicited testimony from a detective who said the victim made consistent statements about Mr. Gibson's involvement immediately after the incident while still in the hospital being treated for his injuries. The testimony was received over Mr. Gibson's objection.

Generally, prior consistent statements are inadmissible as hearsay and cannot be used to corroborate or bolster a witness's trial testimony. Taylor v. State, 855 So. 2d 1, 22 (Fla. 2003). However, where the prior consistent statement at issue is offered to rebut a charge of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication, and where the statement's declarant is subject to cross-examination regarding the statement at trial, the statement is not hearsay. See Fla. Stat. § 90.801(2) (2019); see also Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186, 198 (Fla. 1997) (holding that a prior consistent statement offered to rebut a charge of improper motive or recent fabrication is admissible if it was made prior to the existence of the improper motive).

Here the detective testified to a prior consistent statement that was offered to rebut a charge of improper motive or recent fabrication and the statement's declarant was subject to cross examination at trial. This was a classic prior consistent statement. It was not hearsay. And the trial court did not err in admitting it.

Affirmed.

Long, J.

Bilbrey and Nordby, JJ., concur.