SHERMAN WEST, 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.
Sherman West appeals his robbery conviction, claiming the trial court improperly admitted other-crimes evidence. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, finding that while evidence of the stolen getaway car was inadmissible as irrelevant other-crimes evidence, any error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
The court held that evidence of the high-speed chase and West's continued presence in the fleeing vehicle was admissible as consciousness of guilt. However, evidence that the getaway car was stolen was inadmissible as irrelevant other-crimes evidence with no connection to West. Any error in admitting the stolen vehicle evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
[1] Evidence of flight, including a high-speed police chase involving a getaway car, is admissible to show consciousness of guilt, even if the defendant was a passenger in th…
[2] A defendant's presence as a passenger in a getaway car, which is attempting to evade apprehension, can be considered a continuous part of the scheme to flee the scene of…
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“his subsequent presence in the same car, as a passenger, two hours later, which car was still attempting to escape apprehension, may be taken as a continuous part of the same scheme to flee the scene of the crime”
Establishes that West's continued presence in the getaway vehicle during the police chase constituted admissible evidence of consciousness of guilt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWest committed a purse-snatch robbery and entered a car as a passenger to escape. Police apprehended him two hours later as a passenger in the same ve…
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 Evidence Of Flight cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Sherman West from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for robbery. The sole contention on appeal is that the trial court improperly admitted other-crimes evidence.
We affirm. First, the defendant concedes, as he must, that the trial court properly admitted in evidence that (a) the defendant was apprehended by police, two hours after the charged purse-snatch robbery, as a passenger in a car identified by the robbery victim as the car the defendant entered, as a passenger, to effect his getaway from the scene of the charged robbery, and (b) the wallet stolen from the robbery victim was found by police in this car.
Moreover, the defendant raises no point on appeal concerning the admissibility of the robbery victim’s identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged robbery.
Second, the fact that the car was apprehended after a high speed police chase was, contrary to the defendant’s contention, admissible as evidence of flight tending to show consciousness of guilt. True, the defendant did not himself operate the car in question, but he plainly consented to the driver’s operation of the car when he entered it as a passenger to effect his escape from the scene of the crime; his subsequent presence in the same car, as a passenger, two hours later, which car was still attempting to escape apprehension, may be taken as a continuous part of the same scheme to flee the scene of the crime. See Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9, 20-21 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 894, 107 S.Ct. 295, 93 L.Ed.2d 269 (1986); O’Connell v. State, 480 So. 2d 1284, 1285 (Fla.1985); Washington v. State, 432 So. 2d 44, 47 (Fla.1983); Daniels v. State, 108 So. 2d 755, 760 (Fla.1959).
Third, the fact that the car was a stolen vehicle was, in our view, irrelevant other-crimes evidence as there is no evidence that the defendant committed the offense of car theft or aided in the commission of same. State v. Norris, 168 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1964); Rolle v. State, 431 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Chapman v. State, 417 So. 2d 1028, 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that this evidence had no impact whatever on the outcome of this case. Not only was the defendant positively identified by the robbery victim at the arrest scene as the perpetrator of the charged purse-snatch robbery, he was apprehended two hours later attempting to escape in the same car he had previously entered to effect his getaway from the scene of the crime, and the victim’s stolen wallet was, in fact, found in the subject car; no evidence or plausible explanation was ever offered below to explain this damning evidence. The fact that the getaway car was stolen added little, if anything, to the strong, unrebutted case of guilt against the defendant and did not, in our view, affect the outcome of this case. Harman v. State, 527 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1988); Craig v. State, 510 So. 2d 857, 864 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 108 S.Ct. 732, 98 L.Ed.2d 680 (1988); McKinney v. State, 462 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franizy Jean-Marie v. State, 947 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…dt, Florida Evidence § 404.17 (1993 ed.)). Moreover, even if the trial judge admitted the evidence erroneously, the error was harmless due to the ample evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Harmon v. State, 527 So. 2d 182 (Fla.1988); see West v. State, 579 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The defendant raises the issue of whether double jeopardy attaches .to his convictions for both armed burglary and carrying a concealed firearm. We agree that the defendant cannot be convicted and sentenced for two crimes involv…
-
Denmark v. State, 646 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ing testimony showing that Humphrey stole the van that was later used in the shooting. Again, there was no evidence linking the other appellants to this theft and it therefore constituted “irrelevant other-crimes evidence” as to them. West v. State, 579 So. 2d 288, 289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). As to Humphrey, such testimony was also irrelevant under section 90.402. Evidence of his theft of the van, even though the theft occurred immediately prior to the shooting, bore absolutely no relevancy to the only critical m…
-
Jackson v. State, 703 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…n’s unauthorized and unannounced entry into the victim’s house coupled with his immediate flight from the house, without explanation, when seen by the victim constituted “stealthy entry.” See State v. Waters, 436 So. 2d 66 (Fla.1983); West v. State, 579 So. 2d 288 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Florida v. State, 522 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Additionally, we disagree with Jackson’s claim that certain comments by the prosecutor, regarding the truthfulness of the victim’s testimony, made during closing argument w…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Craig v. State, 510 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1987)
- Bundy v. State, 471 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1985)
- 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)
- Ethorn Buie v. L. D. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 168 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1964)
- Bundy v. Florida, 479 U.S. 894 (U.S. 1986)
- In re Florida BAR, 108 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1959)
- Washington v. State, 432 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 1983)
- Harmon v. State, 527 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1988)
- Chapman v. State, 417 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)