MICHAEL ANDRE WHITE, 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.
Michael White appealed his armed robbery conviction, challenging the trial court's admission of testimony about his alleged prior bad conduct involving cocaine use. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the prejudicial testimony was irrelevant to the armed robbery charge and could not be deemed harmless error given White's defense of mere presence.
The testimony regarding White's prior bad conduct was irrelevant to the armed robbery charge and was erroneously admitted. The error was not harmless because White's defense relied on a claim of mere presence, making the prejudicial bad conduct evidence harmful to his case.
[1] Evidence of prior bad acts or criminal activity is inadmissible if it is irrelevant to the issues at trial.
[2] A defendant's objection to testimony as irrelevant for rebuttal purposes sufficiently preserves the issue for appeal when the trial court recognizes the potential inadmis…
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“In that the meeting at a base house, prior bad conduct and criminal activity testified to by Clowers had no relevance to the issues at trial, or appellant's pending charge of armed robbery, it was error for the court to allow this testimony.”
Establishes that the trial court committed error by admitting irrelevant prior bad conduct evidence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhite was convicted of armed robbery. His co-perpetrator Clowers testified for the state after pleading guilty. Clowers testified that he met White ap…
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 Prior Bad Acts Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
This appeal is taken from a conviction for armed robbery, in which the appellant con tends the trial court erred in allowing testimony pertaining to alleged prior bad conduct or criminal activity of the appellant. Appellant also complains the trial court erred in failing to give a requested instruction on “mere presence”; however, we find no merit in appellant’s argument on that point.
Appellant’s co-perpetrator, Clowers, testified for the state after pleading guilty to the armed robbery. Clowers did not receive any special consideration in exchange for his testimony. He stated, inter alia, that he met appellant approximately one week before the crime at a base house, a place where people smoke cocaine. Clow-ers said appellant offered someone cocaine rocks in exchange for the use of a car. As a threshold matter, appellee contends appellant did not properly preserve this issue for appeal by a specific objection at the time the testimony was offered. Hamilton v. State, 458 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
The first time the state sought to go into this line of questioning on cross-examination of appellant, appellant’s trial counsel objected as being beyond the scope of direct examination. When Clow-ers was later called as a rebuttal witness for the state, and this line of inquiry was reopened, appellant’s counsel objected as being irrelevant for purposes of rebuttal.
However, it appears in the ensuing discussion with the judge that the court made reference to the lack of relevance or admissibility of appellant’s alleged prior “bad other act.” Accordingly, this issue was recognized by the trial court at a time when corrective measures could have been taken to avoid appeal.
In that the meeting at a base house, prior bad conduct and criminal activity testified to by Clowers had no relevance to the issues at trial, or appellant’s pending charge of armed robbery, it was error for the court to allow this testimony. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959); Lockett v. State, 527 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). In light of the appellant’s position taken at trial, that he had no knowledge of Clowers’ plan to commit the robbery and was “merely present,” we cannot say that the error was harmless, and therefore we would reverse and remand for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Witherspoon v. State, 645 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…is erroneous and highly prejudicial collateral crimes evidence had no impact on the determination of the defendant’s credibility. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Jackson v. State, 598 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); White v. State, 547 So. 2d 308, 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); O’Steen v. State, 506 So. 2d 476, 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). The final judgments of conviction and sentences under review are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial. Reversed and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Hamilton v. State, 458 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Oliveira v. State, 527 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)