HELEN JOYCE ABBOTT, 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.
The court held that a police officer's statement implying the defendant was a "larger scale drug dealer" was a violation of the Williams rule and warranted reversal.
During the state's case, a police officer testified that the appellant was "known to be a larger scale drug dealer." The defense objected and moved fo…
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 Criminal Propensity cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Helen Joyce Abbott appeals the judgments entered upon her convictions for two counts of sale of propylhexedrine, two counts of possession with intent to sell propylhexedrine, and one count of sale of a substance in lieu of a controlled substance.1 She contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for mistrial when a police officer implied at trial that she had committed crimes other than the offenses for which she was being tried. We hold that the comment was a clear violation of the Williams rule2 and reverse.
The appellant was tried by jury and during the state’s ease, Detective Moore of the Polk County Sheriff’s Office made the spontaneous statement that the appellant was “known to be a larger scale drug dealer.” The defense objected and moved for a mistrial. After denying the motion, the court instructed the jury to “disregard the last question and answer.” We hold that this curative instruction was ineffective to overcome the prejudicial effect of the implication that the appellant was involved in other, more serious drug activity. See Elliott v. State, 590 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Similar fact evidence is admissible if relevant to a fact in issue even though it also points to the commission of a separate crime, but evidence of other crimes is inadmissible where its sole relevancy is to attack the character of the defendant or to show the defendant’s propensity to commit a crime. State v. Vasquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla.1982); § 90.404, Fla.Stat. (1989). Such evidence is presumptively harmful. Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1990). The officer’s remark was relevant only to the appellant’s bad character and criminal propensity. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.
Reversed.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)2., Fla.Stat. (Supp.1990); § 817.-563(1), Fla.Stat. (1989).
. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rimes v. State, 645 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…ony. Although we agree that a curative instruction would accentuate the testimony, the failure to give an instruction left the jury with the impression that the objectionable testimony was relevant. We conclude our prior holding in Abbott v. State, 622 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), compels reversal. In Abbott, a state witness testified that the defendant was “known to be a larger scale drug dealer.” 622 So. 2d at 602. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion for mistrial and instructed the jury to disr…
-
Freeman v. State, 630 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…ateral crimes evidence is presumptively harmful.” Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla.1990). A curative instruction is ineffective to overcome the prejudicial effect of the implication that the defendant was a drug dealer. See Abbott v. State, 622 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (sheriffs spontaneous statement that defendant was known to be a larger scale drug dealer warranted new trial); Parkansky v. Old Key Largo, 546 So. 2d 1143, [*1227] 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (inference that defendant was a drug deal…
-
Carlton White v. State, 734 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…s charged. See Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959); § 90.404, Fla. Stat. (1997). Moreover, Miller’s testimony created a strong inference that appellant was guilty of crimes far greater than those for which he was tried. See Abbott v. State, 622 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(reversing a conviction after a police officer implied. that appellant had committed crimes other than the offenses for which she- was being tried). Because appellant has demonstrated that the improper testimony which came into evi…
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
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Czubak v. State, 570 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1990)
- State v. Vazquez, 419 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 1982)
- Elliott v. State, 590 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)