KEITH R. LONG, 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.
Keith Long was convicted of theft after a jury trial. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction because the trial court improperly admitted testimony suggesting Long had committed similar thefts in the past, which violated the Williams Rule prohibiting evidence of prior crimes to prove criminal propensities.
The court held that the testimony was inadmissible under the Williams Rule because evidence of similar crimes is only admissible if relevant to something other than proving bad character or criminal propensities, and must be supported by proof that the prior crime was actually committed by the defendant. The testimony was highly prejudicial and required reversal.
[1] Evidence of prior similar crimes is inadmissible to prove bad character or criminal propensities.
[2] Evidence of prior similar crimes is admissible only if the former crime was committed and committed by the person on trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“similar fact evidence of a prior crime is admissible if relevant, except to prove bad character or criminal propensities. However, prior to evidence of an independent crime being admissible, it is essential to show that the former crime was committed and committed by the person on trial.”
Establishes the Williams Rule standard requiring proof of prior crime before admissibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employee of Cooper Radio Company testified about a string of unsolved thefts in the store and stated that an employee's son had previously seen Lon…
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 Similar Fact Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
After trial by jury, appellant was convicted of the theft of certain items from Cooper Radio Company. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing testimony concerning his alleged commission of crimes of a similar nature. We agree and reverse.
An employee of Cooper Radio Company testified that a string of unsolved thefts had occurred in the store. The relevant portions of his testimony are as follows: Q [By the prosecutor] Tell us why your suspicion that this man [appellant] was different from anyone else who walked in your store.
A Because we had, we had — another employee of the store had seen him — one of the employee’s sons — excuse me — had seen him steal something before, and we were suspicious of him from that.
Q Did you see him on any other occasion which would make you suspicious of him if he came into your store again?
A We had had a string of thefts occur in the store of small items, expensive items, like tape recorders, photograph cartridges, things like that, disappear. We had never seen anyone [sic] take them, but we noticed that at least one of the items one day, which was in a place near where the defendant had been walking, we noticed a few hours after he had left that unit was missing. ...
. .. [A]s a result of that, we tried to keep closer scrutiny on him when he came into the store, because he would come into the store once in a while, he would buy a few things, .. . and then he would take a long time walking around the store.
Q So is it because of these early incidents that you kept a particular close eye on him this time . . .?
A Yes.... [W]e had made, arrangements with the police to call them the next time that he was in the store.
This testimony was admitted over the timely objection of appellant’s trial attorney.
In Dibble v. State, 347 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.2d DCA 1977), this court reversed a conviction because testimony implied that the defendant there had been involved in similar criminal activities in the past. We stated:
In Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959), it was held that similar fact evidence of a prior crime is admissible if relevant, except to prove bad character or criminal propensities. However, prior to evidence of an independent crime being admissible, it is essential to show that the former crime was committed and committed by the person on trial. Norris v. State, 158 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963) and State v. Norris, 168 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1964).
Id. at 1097.
The testimony characterizing appellant as a shoplifting suspect was a clear violation of the Williams Rule. Moreover, there was no proof that appellant had committed any previous thefts. Thus, this testimony was inadmissible. Williams, supra; Norris, supra. It was also highly prejudicial, so that reversal is required here.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for new trial.1
CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur. . We note that appellant was charged with grand theft but convicted of the lesser included offense of petit theft. On remand, therefore, he may, of course, only be tried for the offense of petit theft.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elliott v. State, 590 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…l court erred in denying the appellant’s motion for a mistrial. A cautionary instruction was insufficient to overcome the incurable effect of the witness’ prejudicial comment. See Bradwell v. State, 468 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Long v. State, 407 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court for a new trial. SCHOONOVER, C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.…
-
Bradwell v. State, 468 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…mero v. State, 341 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We do find error in the failure to declare a mistrial because of the minor’s statement. State v. Vasquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1982); Evans v. State, 432 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Long v. State, 407 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). We therefore reverse the conviction and sentence and return the matter to the trial court for a new trial. Reversed and remanded with directions.…
-
Duffell v. S. Walton Emergency Servs., Inc., 501 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…1986) (evidence that plaintiff in a personal injury action had a prior homosexual relationship was irrelevant to his injuries and, even if relevant, its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice); Long v. State, 407 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (characterization of defendant in a theft prosecution as a shoplifting suspect, without proof that he had committed any previous thefts, was so prejudicial as to require reversal); Pulliam v. State, 446 So. 2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Ethorn Buie v. L. D. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 168 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1964)
- Effie L. Norris v. State, 158 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Dibble v. State, 347 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)