STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
JORGE AYALA, RESPONDENT
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 the state's petition for certiorari was timely and that the trial judge did not err in excluding evidence of another murder.
[1] A state's petition for certiorari review of a pretrial order excluding evidence is timely when filed within thirty days of the order that definitively denies admission of…
[2] The right to seek immediate review of pretrial orders excluding similar crimes evidence does not mandate that the state must seek review at the moment of the trial court'…
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 intelligenceThe state sought to introduce evidence of another murder to prove the respondent's guilt in the current case. The trial judge initially ruled the evid…
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 Other Crimes Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state seeks our review of an order excluding state’s evidence of the alleged murder of another person to show respondent’s guilt for the murder of the victim in this case. The issue was first presented to the predecessor judge in January 1992, who determined that at that time the evidence was inadmissible but that the state could raise the issue again if it had new or additional information.
It is suggested that the state’s attempted review is untimely, that certiorari should have been sought in January, not in July. We disagree. The entirely tentative nature of the trial judge’s ruling left open the possibility that the state could yet persuade the trial judge to allow this “other crimes”1 evidence. The mere fact, standing alone, that the state has the right to seek immediate review of pretrial orders excluding similar crimes evidence does not necessarily yield the conclusion that the state must do so at the moment of the trial court’s first expression on the subject, or forever lose it.
Nor does the thirty day time limitation set forth in rule 9.100(c) mean that this attempted review is untimely. The rule requires that the petition be filed within thirty days of “rendition of the order to be reviewed.” Here the state seeks review of the July 6, 1992, order that effectually denied admission of the evidence in light of the new and additional facts the state lately asserted. As this petition was filed on July 31, 1992, it plainly was timely.
On the merits, we are unable to say that the decision is clearly in error. Whether to admit other crimes evidence is up to the discretion of the trial judge. The state has not pointed to any evidence in the record that establishes unquestionably that the proposed evidence would have to be admitted as a matter of law. In fact, it is a close call. The state has not made it clearly appear on this petition for common law certiorari that the trial judge had only one course left open to him.
CERTIORARI DENIED.
LETTS, DELL and PARMER, JJ„ concur. . See § 90.404(2), Fla.Stat. (1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shapiro v. State, 696 So. 2d 1321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…it is not uniquely similar. E.g., Finney v. State, 660 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1995); Bryan v. State, 533 So. 2d 744 (Fla.1988). See also Gould v. State, 558 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), rev’d on other grounds, 577 So. 2d 1302 (Fla.1991); State v. Ayala, 604 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In both instances the victims were married but separated from their husbands. Neither victim sought sexual counseling from Appellant, but rather he initiated their conversations about sex. Both victims were complimented and then…
-
Duffey v. State, 741 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…hat the conduct is no longer characteristic of the defendant.” 513 So. 2d at 124. The decision on the relevance and admissibility of prior crimes evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. See Griswold, 82 So. at 49; State v. Ayala, 604 So. 2d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In Rossi this court approved the admissibility of criminal conduct occurring ten years prior to the crime charged. In a case involving familial sexual abuse, the supreme court held that sexual batteries occurring twenty y…
-
Traina v. State, 657 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…t is given broad discretion when making a determination as to whether to admit or exclude evidence, and that decision will not be overturned absent a showing of an abuse or discretion. Rivera v. State, 561 So. 2d 536, 540 (Fla.1990); State v. Ayala, 604 So. 2d 1275, 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). In the instant ease, the trial court listened to the proffered evidence and found the facts of the three separate incidents not to be similar enough to warrant admission into evidence. Specifically, it found that entries…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence