JAMES CRAMMER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Crammer appealed his burglary conviction, challenging both a search warrant affidavit and the admission of evidence regarding a separate burglary. The appellate court found the affidavit sufficient but reversed the conviction because the trial court improperly admitted collateral crime evidence under the Williams Rule.
The search warrant affidavit was sufficient; however, the trial court erred in admitting collateral crime evidence regarding Perry's burglary because the crimes shared only general similarities without displaying anything particularly unique about their commission, insufficient to meet the Williams Rule exception.
[1] An affidavit is sufficient to support a search warrant when it establishes probable cause for the search.
[2] Evidence of collateral crimes is inadmissible if its sole purpose is to prove bad character or a propensity to commit the crime charged.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Evidence as to collateral crimes is inadmissible under the Williams Rule if its only purpose is to establish bad character or propensity to commit the crime.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that collateral crime evidence cannot be used solely to show propensity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrammer was tried for stealing a radio-tape player and electric can opener from Rosalie Young's apartment. During trial, the victim of a separate burg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prejudicial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant appeals the lower court’s denial of a defense motion to suppress based upon the insufficiency of the affidavit for a search warrant. Appellant also appeals the lower court’s order finding appellant guilty of burglary of a dwelling with the intent to commit petit theft. The basis for the second challenge is that the lower court erred in allowing evidence of a crime for which the appellant was not on trial to be introduced at the trial in question.
We find that the affidavit was sufficient to support the search warrant in this case; however, we agree with appellant that the lower court erred in admitting collateral evidence testimony at his trial. Accordingly, we reverse on this point alone.
Appellant was on trial for having stolen a radio-tape player and an electric can opener from the victim, Rosalie Young. The items in question were found missing from Young’s apartment while she was in the hospital. The items were subsequently found in appellant’s apartment.
The victim of another robbery, Robert Perry, who lived in the same duplex as Young, was permitted to testify during the trial in question about the burglary of his apartment. Perry identified a clock and a rug which had been stolen from his apartment as part of the state’s evidence against appellant. A police officer later testified that the clock and the rug were recovered from appellant’s apartment. Defense counsel objected throughout Perry’s testimony and moved for a mistrial because of the prejudicial nature of it.
Evidence as to collateral crimes is inadmissible under the Williams Rule if its only purpose is to establish bad character or propensity to commit the crime. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). Although collateral crime evidence is admissible to show a common plan, scheme, pattern of criminality or to establish identity, it is not admissible where the collateral crime is merely similar to the crime for which the defendant is on trial.
In Davis v. State, 376 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), there were two criminal episodes involved. Both involved burglary, a sexual assault, an entry through a window, and both were done at the same time of night within three weeks of each other. Additionally, money was taken in both instances. This court held these similarities were not enough to make evidence of one burglary admissible at a trial on the other. In Bradley v. State, 378 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), three burglaries were committed within the same neighborhood and within two weeks of each other. There were similar fabric marks found at each residence where the entrance was made through a window. This court held that evidence of one of the burglaries was inadmissible at a trial on the other burglary. This court stated that a requirement of more than a mere similarity between the crimes had to be met in order to make such evidence admissible under the Williams Rule exception.
In the present case, there were two burglaries involved in the same duplex within eight days of each other. As there were only general similarities between the crimes and displayed nothing particularly unique about their commission, it was error for the trial court to admit the testimony concerning the Perry burglaries during the trial on the Young burglary.
REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial.
GRIMES and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bricker v. State, 462 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…al crime evidence is admissible to show a common plan, scheme, or pattern of criminality, or to establish identity, it is not admissible where the collateral crime is merely similar to the crime for which the defendant is on trial. Crammer v. State, 391 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The test for admissibility is not that there be greater similarity than dissimilarity between the crimes. Rather, as we stated in Green v. State, 427 [*559] So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet, for rev. denied, 438 So. 2d 834 (Fla.198…
-
Smith v. State, 464 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…a defense or establish a pattern of criminality. Cotita v. State, 381 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). Such evidence is not admissible where the collateral crime is merely similar to the crime for which the defendant is on trial. Crammer v. State, 391 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). And, to be admissible, there must be something so unique or particularly unusual about the perpetrator or his modus operandi that it would tend to independently establish that he committed the crime charged. Green v. State, 427 S…
-
Frieson v. State, 512 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…ntent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. See Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959); Crammer v. State, 391 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). It is clear that the only similarity between the two offenses in this case is that they are both sexual batteries. The only purpose in admitting this Williams Rule evidence was to prove bad character and propensity to commit the…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Davis v. State, 376 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Bradley v. State, 378 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)