Keller v. State
1991 WL 191586, 586 So. 2d 1258 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction must be reversed if based on inadmissible evidence, such as prior consistent statements offered without a charge of recent fabrication, or on a false imprisonment charge where the confinement is merely incidental to another felony.
Facts:
- The victim was an employee at Ronnie Keller's restaurant.
- The victim went to a stable owned by Keller to groom his horses.
- At the stable, the victim alleged that Keller attacked her, grabbing and dragging her several feet.
- The victim testified that Keller penetrated her vagina with his finger and rubbed his penis on her vagina.
- Sometime after the alleged attack, Keller met with another employee, Peggy Fox, at her home.
- Keller asked Fox if she would "back him" on something and possibly lie in court on his behalf by claiming he had spent several nights at her house.
- Keller refused to tell Fox what the matter was about, and Fox refused to cooperate.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Ronnie Keller with two counts of sexual battery and one count of kidnapping in a state trial court.
- At trial, the defense objected to the State's introduction of testimony from multiple witnesses repeating the victim's account of the attack.
- At the conclusion of the State's case, Keller moved for a judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charge.
- The trial judge granted the motion for acquittal on kidnapping but, at the State's request, reduced the charge to the lesser offense of false imprisonment.
- Keller was convicted by a jury on two counts of sexual battery and one count of false imprisonment.
- Keller, as appellant, appealed the convictions to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by admitting testimony that improperly bolsters a victim's credibility and suggests a defendant's consciousness of guilt, and by refusing to acquit on a false imprisonment charge that is merely incidental to another felony?
Opinions:
Majority - Goshorn, C.J.
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by admitting such evidence and refusing to acquit. The court reasoned that the prior consistent statements of the victim, testified to by six other witnesses, were inadmissible hearsay because they did not meet the exception under section 90.801(2)(b). The defense attorney's cross-examination was merely testing the victim's credibility and did not rise to an express or implied charge of recent fabrication, which is required to trigger the exception. The testimony from another employee, Peggy Fox, that Keller asked her to lie for him was too speculative and vague to be admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Finally, under the Faison doctrine, a defendant cannot be separately convicted for false imprisonment when the confinement is merely incidental to another felony, such as sexual battery. Here, the movement of the victim was slight and part of the battery, mandating a judgment of acquittal on the false imprisonment charge.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces several key evidentiary and substantive criminal law principles in Florida. It strictly construes the hearsay exception for prior consistent statements, preventing prosecutors from improperly bolstering a victim's testimony through repetition unless a genuine charge of recent fabrication has been made. The case also exemplifies the application of the section 90.403 balancing test, showing that even relevant evidence of consciousness of guilt will be excluded if it is too speculative and its prejudicial impact outweighs its probative value. Most significantly, it extends the Faison 'incidental confinement' doctrine from kidnapping to the lesser-included offense of false imprisonment, preventing charge-stacking where a brief confinement is an integral part of another crime like sexual battery.
