PATTI MANLY, 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.
Patti Manly appealed her conviction for resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. The court reversed because the trial court improperly admitted testimony about a threat Manly made to a witness, which violated the Williams rule prohibiting collateral crime evidence used solely to show bad character.
The trial court committed reversible error by admitting the threat testimony. The evidence was inadmissible under the Williams rule because it served only to show bad character and attempt to prevent witness testimony, not to prove any element of the crimes charged. The threat statement did not constitute an admission of guilt because appellant never stated or intimated she was guilty, and no reasonable jury could infer guilt from the statement alone.
[1] Evidence of harassment or intimidation is inadmissible if its only purpose is to show that a defendant attempted to prevent a person from testifying, as such evidence is…
[2] A statement can be considered an admission only if one can infer guilt from the statement itself.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 harassment or intimidation is inadmissible if its only purpose is to show that a defendant attempted to prevent a person from testifying. In these situations, the evidence of the collateral crime or bad act is not relevant to proving any element of the crime charged.”
Establishes the legal rule prohibiting collateral crime evidence when used solely to prevent witness testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManly was charged with resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. During trial, a minor child testified that before tria…
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 Statement Against Interest cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
Appellant, Patti Manly, appeals her judgment and sentence for resisting arrest with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. Because the trial court erred in admitting collateral crime testimony prohibited by the Williams rule, we reverse. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959).
We agree with appellant that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed a minor child to testify over objection that sometime before trial, appellant called him on the telephone and threatened him. The child’s exact testimony was, “she told me [that] if she went to jail that I’d pay ‘you little Evidence of harassment or intimidation is inadmissible if its only purpose is to show that a defendant attempted to prevent a person from testifying. In these situations, the evidence of the collateral crime or bad act is not relevant to proving any element of the crime charged. See, e.g., Fulton v. State, 523 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), review denied, 581 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 1988); St. Louis v. State, 584 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
The state argues that the testimony regarding the threat went “directly to the ultimate issue of guilt” in addition to qualifying as an “admission” and a “statement against interest” under sections 90.803(18)(a) and 90.-804(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1993). We find the state’s arguments unpersuasive because in threatening the witness, appellant never stated or intimated that she was guilty of the crime charged. Further, the statement standing alone does not imply guilt and no reasonable jury could infer guilt therefrom. See State v. Lamar, 538 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (a statement can be considered an admission only if one can infer guilt from the statement itself).
We also reject the state’s alternative argument that even if improperly admitted, the error was harmless. While it is true that there was sufficient evidence to support appellant’s conviction, there was also testimony upon which the jury could have relied to return a verdict of not guilty. The credibility of appellant was crucial. From the introducing of the evidence of a collateral crime or bad act, the jury could have inferred that appellant was simply a “bad” person. As a result, the testimony could have contributed to the jury’s verdict of guilt.
We have carefully examined the remaining points raised on appeal and find no error. Accordingly, appellant’s conviction is reversed, the sentence vacated, and the ease remanded for a new trial.
GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. State, 760 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
-
Jenkins v. State, 697 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…e. AFFIRMED. STONE, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN, DELL, GUNTHER, WARNER, POLEN, KLEIN, PARIENTE, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur. FARMER, J., specially concurs with opinion. . Section 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). . To the extent that Manly v. State, 640 So. 2d 142, 143 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), suggests that threats made against a witness by a defendant are inadmissible to demonstrate the defendant's guilt, we recede from its holding.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Henderson ST. Louis v. State, 584 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- State v. Lamar, 538 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Fulton v. State, 523 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)