SHAUN DELONTE MINICK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that testimony concerning the appellant's previous drug purchase from the eyewitness was admissible and any error was harmless.
Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm. The State introduced testimony that appellant had previously purchased drugs from the …
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 Collateral Crime Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Shaun Delonte Minick, appeals his conviction and sentence for second degree murder with a firearm. Appellant contends that admitted testimony, concerning appellant’s previous purchase of drugs from the eyewitness to the murder, constituted fundamental error, thus depriving him of a fair trial. We affirm.
Appellee, State, asserts that this testimony showed that the appellant was familiar with the neighborhood, having previously purchased cocaine there from the witness, and that the victim had stolen a VCR from appellant. Therefore, the State contends, the testimony was probative and relevant to demonstrate the appellant’s knowledge of the area and his motive for the murder. The test for admissibility of evidence of collateral crimes is relevancy. Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla.1984). Evidence of other crimes is relevant if it casts light on the character of the crime for which the accused is being prosecuted, such as when it shows either motive, intent, absence of mistake, or identity. Ruffin v. State, 397 So. 2d 277 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 368, 70 L.Ed.2d 194 (1981) (citing Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959)).
Further, because the evidence against appellant was overwhelming, any error in allowing the eyewitness to testify to prior dealings with appellant was harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorsett v. State, 944 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…t did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence concerning prior domestic violence in the home because the evidence was relevant to explain why the children did not disclose the abuse for approximately five years. Likewise, in Minick v. State, 560 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), the State argued that testimony regarding the defendant’s prior purchase of drugs from the eyewitnesses to the murder was properly admitted because it was relevant to demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge of the area and to…
-
Nordelo v. State, 603 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ity of the accused.” Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990); Bryan v. State, 533 So. 2d 744 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028, 109 S.Ct. 1765, 104 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989); Smart v. State, 596 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Minick v. State, 560 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1989). “Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.” §§ 90.401, 90.404(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). Here, the officer recognized Nordelo from a subsequent unrelated traffic…
-
Holland v. State, 636 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1994)…that Holland tried to grab his service revolver during a struggle. Collateral crimes are relevant to prove a material fact in issue such as motive, intent, absence of mistake, or identity. § 90.404(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993); see also Minick v. State, 560 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The record reflects that the purpose of the evidence in this ease was to show Holland’s propensity to struggle with a police officer when arrested. Evidence of collateral crimes or acts is not admissible to show a criminal d…
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Johnson v. Florida, 454 U.S. 882 (U.S. 1981)
- Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1984)
- Ruffin v. State, 397 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 1981)