RAYMOND PAUL PAQUETTE, 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.
Raymond Paquette was convicted of lewd assault on his two young daughters based partly on similar fact evidence including testimony about prior molestation of his niece and indecent exposure incidents. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the similar fact evidence was inadmissible because it was offered solely to establish propensity and lacked sufficient connection to the charged crimes.
The court held that the similar fact evidence was improperly admitted. The testimony about indecent exposure was properly excluded as not sufficiently similar to criminal child molestation, and the prior molestation testimony was admitted only to establish propensity, which violates the general rule excluding character evidence. The conviction was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
[1] Similar fact evidence is generally inadmissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the person acted in conformity with that character on a particula…
[2] Evidence of prior acts of fondling is inadmissible similar fact evidence when the identity of the perpetrator is not in issue and there is no claim of accident, mistake,…
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“The only real purpose of the similar fact evidence was to convince the jury that because of the defendant's propensities as shown by his prior acts, it was very likely (probable) that he did the things of which he was charged in this case. It may have accomplished that purpose but it should not have been admitted into evidence.”
Establishes that evidence admitted solely to show propensity is improper and violates the exclusionary rule, regardless of its persuasive effect.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaquette was charged with lewd assault on his eight and ten-year-old natural daughters. At trial, the state presented similar fact evidence consisting…
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 Rule Of Exclusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was convicted for lewd assaults on his eight and ten year old natural daughters (section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes) after a jury trial in which the state presented “similar fact evidence” (see Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959) and § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat.) in the form of (1) testimony of the defendant’s niece that seven years before in another state the defendant had fondled her, and (2) testimony of two neighborhood girls that they had several times seen the defendant naked in his house and in his yard (i.e., that he “exposed” himself).
The tremendous probative value of similar fact evidence to establish the defendant’s propensity and bad character in the mind of the jury plus the overwhelmingly convincing power of such evidence (which is the very reason for the strict general rule excluding such evidence)1 constrains against expanding the scope of Heuring v. State, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla.1987) which, to some extent, relaxed the general rule of exclusion. The testimony of the two neighborhood girls, in this case, is exactly like the testimony of the Barnhill children held in Heuring to be properly excluded.
There was no issue in this case as to the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator, nor any admission by him that while he did the acts of which he was accused, he did them by accident or mistake or innocently with good intent and purpose. The only real purpose of the similar fact evidence was to convince the jury that because of the defendant’s propensities as shown by his prior acts, it was very likely (probable) that he did the things of which he was charged in this case. It may have accomplished that purpose but it should not have been admitted into evidence.
Also, negligence in concealing nakedness, or even intentional nudity, is not, in a legal sense, similar conduct to a criminal act of child molestation. There is no commonly accepted, or scientifically established, relationship between nudists and child molesters.
We do not find it comfortable to make a judicial ruling in favor of one accused of vile acts, but the law does not hold that the end justifies the means. The general rule of exclusion guards against a real danger of great injustice and it should not be relaxed to the extent of the facts in this case.
The conviction is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. SHARP, C.J., dissents with opinion.
. Wigmore has said it thusly:
It may almost be said that it is because of the indubitable relevancy of specific bad acts showing the character of the accused that such evidence is excluded. It is objectionable not because it has no appreciable probative value but because it has too much.
SHARP, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. While I agree that admission of the testimony of the two older neighborhood girls to whom the defendant had merely exposed himself was erroneous and beyond the scope of Heuring v. State, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla.1987), there was such overwhelming evidence in this case that the defendant committed lewd assaults on his two natural daughters and a niece, that I think any such error was harmless. I would affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maddry v. State, 585 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…9). . See Heuring v. State, 513 So. 2d 122, 125 (Fla.1987), in which the court approved the exclusion of evidence of molestations of five other children "since they were not sufficiently similar to the charged offenses.” See also Paquette v. State, 528 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), involving lewd assaults on daughters, in which the court held that evidence that the defendant had previously exposed himself to other neighborhood children was inadmissible where there was no issue as to the identity of the per…
Authorities Cited
- 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)
- State v. Fundora, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1987)
- Frederick A.R. Heuring v. State, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1987)
- Hodges v. State, 403 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)