JAMES WILLIAM THOMAS, 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 the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and that these errors were not harmless.
Appellant was convicted of capital sexual battery and attempted capital sexual battery. The trial court admitted evidence under the Williams rule and …
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 Victim Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
James William Thomas appeals his convictions for capital sexual battery and attempted capital sexual battery. We agree with Thomas that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence and therefore, we reverse for a new trial.
First, the Williams1 rule testimony of C.S. was improperly admitted because her allegations were not established by clear and convincing evidence. See Audano v. State, 641 So. 2d 1356, 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Second, the Williams rule testimony of C.T. was erroneously admitted because this collateral offense did not share any unique characteristics with the charged offense. See Feller v. State, 637 So. 2d 911, 916 (Fla.1994); Heuring v. State, 513 So. 2d 122, 124 (Fla.1987). Third, the investigating detective and the protective services counselor were improperly permitted to express their opinions regarding the victim’s credibility. See Tingle v. State, 536 So. 2d 202, 205 (Fla.1988). Finally, the prosecutor’s closing argument based on the erroneously admitted Williams rule testimony was improper. We have reviewed the record and cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneous admission of this evidence was harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). Therefore, we reverse Thomas’ convictions and sentences and remand for a new trial.
DANAHY, AC.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur. . Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Williams v. Florida, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- White v. Illinois, 361 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1959)
- State v. Fundora, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1987)
- Frederick A.R. Heuring v. State, 513 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 1987)
- Tingle v. State, 536 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1988)
- Gov't Emps. Ins. Co. v. Jenkins, 637 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1994)
- Audano v. State, 641 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)