LELAND LOYD, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Common Scheme Or Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ„ concur.
COBB, J., dissents with opinion.
COBB, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent based upon the following cases: Coler v. State, 418 So. 2d 238 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 763, 74 L.Ed.2d 978 (1983); Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959); Hodges v. State, 403 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), review denied, 413 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1982). In the latter case we said:
Most cases permitting the use of similar fact evidence in criminal sexual assault cases relate to the issue of identity. The concepts of “modus operandi” or “common scheme or plan” relate to identification by recognition of unusual, thus identifying, aspects of the method that a particular individual uses to accomplish a particular act. See Dean v. State, 277 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1973); Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959); Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So. 2d 201 (1948); Sweet v. State, 313 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Fivecoat v. State, 244 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Hines v. State, 243 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Mims v. State, 241 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Blackburn v. State, 208 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Coney v. State, 193 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). See generally Annot., 2 A.L.R. 4th 330, § 5 (1980) (“Admissibility, in Rape Case, of Evidence That Accused Raped or Attempted to Rape Person Other Than Prosecu-trix”).
403 So. 2d at 1378 n. 5.
In the instant case there was no unusual aspect of the method used by the defendant in two separate lewd acts involving different victims. The introduction of evidence of the incident with which the defendant was not charged was solely for the purpose of showing propensity, a purpose clearly disallowed by the Williams rule.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dance v. Tatum, 629 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1993)…ivestment will not revive the easements. Roger A. Cunningham, et al. The Law of Property 464 (2d ed.1993). Thus if Dance had an easement, such easement would have been eliminated when parcels A and B came under his control. See also Lacy v. Seegers, 445 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (an easement is extinguished through the merger of the dominant and servient estates).…
-
Est. OF Mary Grace Johnston v. TPE Hotels, Inc., 719 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…5 years for a legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation or liability founded on a written instrument); § 95.11(3)(p) (4 years for suits not specifically provided for in the statutes). . § 177.06, Fla. Stat. (1965). . See Lacy v. Seegers, 445 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Bruce and Ely, Law of Easements and Licenses, Ch. 10 § 10-53. .See Coffman v. James, 177 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). . 22 Fla. Jur.2d Estoppel and Waiver % 10. . Bruce and Ely, Law of Easements and Licenses % 10.58; Wiggin…
-
ONE Harbor Fin. Ltd. Co. v. Hynes Props., LLC, 884 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…correct, but for the wrong reason. The merger doctrine is applied to separate parcels owned by the same individual in the same right where there is an existing easement that creates both a dominant and a servient estate. See, e.g., Lacy v. Seegers, 445 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). An otherwise valid easement may be extinguished as a matter of law through the doctrine of merger when ownership of the dominant and servient estates becomes united in one person. Id. Here, it cannot be said as a matter of law t…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593 (Fla. 1948)
- Coler v. State, 418 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1982)
- Blackburn v. State, 208 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Dean v. State, 277 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1973)
- Hodges v. State, 403 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Hines v. State, 243 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Coney v. State, 193 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)