IN THE INTEREST OF J.R., A CHILD
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.
Florida appellate court reversed a juvenile delinquency conviction for attempted sexual battery because the trial court admitted prejudicial collateral crime evidence (threatening phone calls) without showing the defendant's participation or knowledge, violating the rule against character evidence.
Admission of evidence regarding threatening phone calls made by unidentified third parties, without showing the defendant's participation, knowledge, or authorization, constitutes reversible error as collateral crime evidence that invites conviction based on bad character rather than the charged offense.
[1] Evidence of threatening phone calls made by unidentified third parties, without showing the defendant's participation, knowledge, or authorization, is inadmissible collat…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJ.R. was adjudicated delinquent and convicted of attempted sexual battery. The alleged victim testified that she and her mother received threatening p…
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 Bad Character Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The child, J.R., suffered an adjudication of delinquency and conviction of attempted sexual battery. He appeals. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
The alleged victim testified that a day prior to trial that she and her mother received threatening phone calls such as “[Tjestify tomorrow and you die, bitch.” These persons (not the child, J.R.) identified themselves only as “friends” of appellant. Appellant objected to this testimony. There was no showing that the coercive calls were made with the active participation, knowledge, or authorization of the appellant. This evidence constituted collateral crime evidence which created a risk that appellant would be convicted based upon his apparent bad character or propensity to commit crimes instead of the evidence concerning the offense with which he was charged. Fulton v. State, 523 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 531 So. 2d 1355 (Fla.1988). See also Saunders v. State, 547 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 562 So. 2d 347 (Fla.1990) [citing Duke v. State, 106 Fla. 205,142 So. 886 (1932); Reeves v. State, 423 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Jones v. State, 385 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) ]. Thus, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., and JAMES H. WALDEN, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tavoris A. Rozier v. State, 636 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…121 L.Ed.2d 5, (1992), aff'd after remand, 618 So. 2d 154 (Fla.1993); State v. Price, 491 So. 2d 536, 536-37 (Fla.1986) (finding that the probative value of the third-party threats was outweighed by its prejudicial impact); In the Interest of J.R., 577 So. 2d 674, 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The State must prove defendant’s connection to the threats by clear and convincing evidence. See Chapman v. State, 417 So. 2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (evidence connecting defendant to collateral crime must be clear an…
Authorities Cited
- Tatum Duke v. State, 106 Fla. 205 (Fla. 1932)
- Jones v. State, 385 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Jasper Otis Reeves v. State, 423 So. 2d 1017 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Carlyle Saunders v. State, 547 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Fulton v. State, 523 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)