LORENZO BOLDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Propensity Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Bolden was charged with and convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer. The state introduced evidence at trial, over defense objection, that he battered another officer a year before. The purpose of the evidence obviously was to show propensity, contrary to the provisions of section 90.-404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) and 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).
The trial court stated that the. testimony was admitted to establish identity or the absence of mistake or accident. These were not material issues at trial. On appeal, the state argues that the testimony was admissible to show a “pattern of conduct” by Bolden. That is exactly why the evidence was inadmissible. Reversal is required pursuant to Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903, 908 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 556, 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981).
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.
DANIEL and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bozeman v. State, 698 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…an inmate must have been “maladjusted,” “violent,” and “have exhibited the propensity for violent behavior towards other inmates and staff.” Such testimony is inadmissible. See Broderick v. State, 564 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Bolden v. State, 543 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Smart v. State, 596 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Additionally, Wimberly’s portrayal of the unit’s inmates is legally problematic because it was specific evidence of Bozeman’s bad character when the defendant had not placed hi…
-
Jackson v. State, 140 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…ed to show motive and intent was inadmissible because motive and intent were not at issue and “the earlier incident of domestic violence did nothing more than demonstrate appellant’s propensity for violence against his girlfriend”); Bolden v. State, 543 So. 2d 423, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (reversing admission of collateral-crime evidence offered to show a “pattern of conduct” by the defendant because its purpose was to show propensity). The State contends that even if we conclude that the trial court erred i…
-
Moss v. State, 169 So. 3d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…. Although the rule addresses “similar fact evidence,” mere similarity to the charged offense does not ensure the relevance or admissibility of collateral crime evidence. Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.9 (2013 ed.); see Bolden v. State, 543 So. 2d 423, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (emphasizing that evidence should not be admitted merely to show a pattern of conduct). Likewise, lack of similarity in itself does not require exclusion of evidence of a collateral offense that is relevant to a material iss…
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)
- Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981)
- Tucker v. Zant, 454 U.S. 1022 (U.S. 1981)