ANDREW COX, 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.
Andrew Cox appeals his conviction for trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana. The court reverses and remands for a new trial due to the erroneous admission of evidence regarding unrelated crimes (insurance fraud, assault, and stabbing) and improper imposition of costs without notice.
The court held that the admission of evidence regarding unrelated collateral crimes was erroneous and not harmless error, requiring reversal. The admission of Stubbs's prior consistent statements was proper. The imposition of costs and surcharges without notice and an opportunity to respond was improper and must be reversed.
[1] Evidence of collateral crimes is inadmissible unless relevant to the charges at trial and closely similar to the crime on trial.
[2] Admission of irrelevant collateral crimes evidence that predisposes jurors to believe the defendant guilty constitutes reversible error.
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“Evidence of other crimes frequently predisposes the minds of jurors to believe the defendant guilty.”
Establishes the principle that evidence of collateral crimes is inherently prejudicial and requires careful scrutiny.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCox was convicted of trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana. At trial, the state introduced evidence implying Cox committed i…
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 Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Andrew Cox-appeals his conviction and sentence for trafficking in marijuana and conspiracy to traffic in marijuana. Appellant raises three issues on appeal. We find merit with two of the points and reverse and remand for a new trial.
At trial and over defense objection, the state introduced several items of evidence which had the plain effect of implying that appellant committed insurance fraud. In addition, the state introduced evidence that appellant had struck a man and his girlfriend during a fight and in another separate unrelated incident had been involved in a stabbing. Evidence of other crimes frequently predisposes the minds of jurors to believe the defendant guilty. Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 556, 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981). Furthermore, evidence of collateral crimes are not admissible unless they are closely similar to the crime on trial. Heuring v. State, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla.1987).
In the instant case, the evidence of appellant’s alleged collateral crimes were not relevant to the charges at trial. Thus, admission of this evidencé was impermissible under the rule espoused in 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 was not harmless error. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). See also Craig v. State, 510 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 108 S.Ct. 732, 98 L.Ed.2d 680 (1988).
We also reject the state’s contention that appellant did not preserve the admission of the fight evidence for appellate review. The record sufficiently indicates that appellant’s trial counsel made an objection to “any fight” during a side-bar conference with the trial court and the state. Once the trial court found this evidence admissible, any continued or further objections to evidence of the fight would have been fruitless. Rodriguez v. State, 494 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
On the other hand, we find that the trial court’s admission of the prior consistent statements of Jeffrey Stubbs was proper and we affirm that point on appeal. Hutchinson v. State, 559 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Jenkins v. State, 547 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Finally, the trial court erred in imposing costs in the amount of $200.00 and a $2500.00 surcharge pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1987), without notice to appellant and an opportunity for him to respond and object. Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984).
As to the state’s request that we apply the federal standard enounced in United States v. Cooper, 870 F. 2d 586 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Rivera-Velez, 839 F. 2d 8 (1st Cir.1988); and United States v. Pagan, 785 F. 2d 378 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1017,107 S.Ct. 667, 93 L.Ed.2d 719 (1986), concerning the imposition of costs, we have recently certified that question to our supreme court. Beasley v. State, 565 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
Accordingly, we reverse appellant’s conviction and sentence and remand for a new trial. We further reverse the imposition of costs and surcharges imposed. We affirm point II on appeal.
DOWNEY, POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 2000)…t denied the defendant's motion in [*891] limine seeking to bar admission of collateral crime evidence, defense counsel later renewed an objection before both witnesses introducing such evidence took the stand. See id. at 744; see also Cox v. State, 563 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (finding collateral crime evidence issue preserved for appellate review because defense counsel objected to admission of such evidence during sidebar conference); Donaldson v. State, 369 So. 2d 691, 694 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…
-
Roper v. State, 608 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…hasis added). It is apparent from this comment that the court considered that defense counsel had registered an objection to his response to the jury. Any further objection by defense counsel, therefore, would have been fruitless. See Cox v. State, 563 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. [*535] 4th DCA 1990); Rodriguez v. State, 494 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Flint v. State, 463 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The jury returned shortly and found Roper guilty on all charges. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.410 states:…
Authorities Cited (22 total)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981)
- Craig v. State, 510 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1987)
- Soliman v. Ebasco Servs., Inc., 484 U.S. 1020 (U.S. 1988)
- Ward v. Sentry Title Co., Inc., 484 U.S. 1020 (U.S. 1988)