WILFRED BERNARD HOLLAND, A/K/A BERNARD T. WILLIAMS, 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.
Appellant Holland was convicted of armed robbery and challenged the admission of evidence regarding a separate, nolle prossed bank robbery. The court affirmed, holding that evidence of collateral offenses may be admitted under the Williams Rule even after nolle pros, distinguishing nolle pros from acquittal.
Evidence of collateral offenses remains admissible under the Williams Rule and Florida Statutes § 90.404(2)(a) even after nolle pros of the charge, because nolle pros is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion distinct from acquittal and does not preclude admissibility of such evidence.
[1] Evidence of collateral offenses is admissible under the 'Williams Rule' even if the defendant has not been convicted of the collateral offense, provided an acquittal has…
[2] A nolle prosequi of a charge does not preclude the admissibility of evidence of the accused's involvement in the nolle prossed offense under statutory rules for admitting…
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“evidence of collateral offenses may not be admitted into evidence after a defendant has been tried and acquitted of such offense”
Establishes the Perkins rule limiting collateral offense evidence when acquittal has occurred
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was identified by two bank tellers and video evidence as the perpetrator of a December 5 bank robbery. During trial, testimony also identifi…
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 Nolle Prosequi cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of a judgment of conviction and sentence for the offense of armed robbery. We find that appellant has failed to present any point of reversible error and we therefore affirm the order appealed.
Appellant was found guilty of a December 5 bank robbery, after being identified by two bank tellers and after a video tape of the robbery was shown to the jury.' During the course of the trial appellant was also identified as a participant in a December 17 bank robbery in the same geographical location. An information had previously been filed against appellant for the December 17 offense, but the charge was thereafter nolle prossed. Appellant contends that testimony as to his participation in the December 17 offense, which was admitted into evidence pursuant to § 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes, and Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959), was rendered inadmissible upon the state’s nolle pros of the December 17 offense.
State v. Perkins, 349 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1977), established that evidence of collateral offenses may not be admitted into evidence after a defendant has been tried and acquitted of such offense. However, after considering constitutional constraints relating to double jeopardy and due process, Perkins carefully avoided predicating admissibility of collateral offense evidence upon conviction, and expressly cautioned that:
Nothing we say here forbids admission under the ‘Williams Rule’ of relevant evidence of collateral crimes for which acquittals have not been obtained.
The decision to nolle pros a charge is a matter of prosecutorial discretion which may be exercised for reasons unrelated to the likelihood of conviction or the prosecutor’s judgment as to the accused’s guilt or innocence of the charged offense. A nolle pros is thus unlike an acquittal and does not preclude the admissibility, pursuant to § 90.404(2)(a) and Williams, of evidence as to the accused’s involvement in the offense alleged in the nolle prossed information. In the present case the trial court therefore did not err by admitting evidence of appellant’s involvement in the December 17 bank robbery. And since a nolle pros is not necessarily of any probative value as to the accused’s guilt or innocence,1 the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s request to inform the jury that the information-charging the December 17 offense had been nolle prossed.
Furthermore, considering the clear and convincing evidence identifying appellant as the perpetrator of the December 5 robbery, any error regarding the above-discussed issues would be harmless. Cf. Clark v. State, 378 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
The order appealed is affirmed.
SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur. . The record in the present case suggests that the charge was nolle prossed for reasons unrelated to the strength of the state’s evidence.
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied. However, we hereby certify as questions of great public importance:
WHETHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE OF A DEFENDANT’S PARTICIPATION IN A COLLATERAL OFFENSE WHICH HAS BEEN NOLLE PROSSED IS ADMISSIBLE?
IF NOT, WHETHER THE ERROR MAY BE HARMLESS?
SHIVERS and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winford Lee Dickey v. State, 458 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…fore the arrival of the police. Therefore, even if the court erred in admitting the impeaching testimony, we do not believe such error would have prevented the jury from reaching a fair and impartial verdict. White, supra; see also Holland v. State, 432 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), (considering the clear and convincing evidence identifying appellant as the perpetrator, any error would be harmless). We therefore hold that the trial court’s admission of the disputed testimony did not rise to the level of fun…
-
Siegel v. State, 68 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ncy of similar-fact evidence “flows from the underlying act rather than the state or the judicial system having taken a particular action with respect to the charges.” Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, § 404.9 (2010); see also Holland v. State, 432 So. 2d 60, 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (holding that trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s request to inform the jury that the Williams rule offense had been nolle prossed), approved, 466 So. 2d 207 (Fla.1985). Thus, the prosecutor could have, and sho…
-
Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…3d DCA 1982), on which the state relies in support of its harmless error argument, the evidence included confessions made by the defendant to two different individuals. See also McKinney v. State, 462 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Holland v. State, 432 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), affirmed, 466 So. 2d 207 (Fla.1985). In the instant case, the only admissible evidence presented was the testimony of Officer Dyer, who conducted the undercover investigation. It cannot be stated that the defendant clearly woul…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Henry v. Clifton et ux., 349 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1976)
- Ojeda v. Louie Wainwright, 378 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)