LEE A. WILLIAMS, 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.
Lee Williams appeals his convictions for burglary and robbery, challenging the trial court's admission of evidence of a collateral crime under the Williams rule. The court reversed, holding that the collateral crime evidence was improperly admitted because the two incidents lacked sufficient similarity and the error was not harmless.
The court held that admission of the collateral crime evidence violated the Williams rule because the two incidents lacked the requisite 'obvious and telling similarities' and unique circumstances necessary to establish identity. The court further held that improper Williams rule evidence constitutes presumed harmful error that the State failed to rebut, entitling the appellant to a new trial.
[1] Evidence of similar crimes may not be admitted to prove bad character or propensity to commit crime.
[2] To be admissible, evidence of similar crimes must possess obvious and telling similarities to the crime charged.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Proper Williams rule evidence is that which possesses 'obvious and telling similarities' to the crime charged.”
Establishes the strict standard required for admitting similar crime evidence under the Williams rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA tourist identified Williams as the man who broke into his car window and stole his wife's purse while he escaped on a bicycle. A few hours later, a …
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 Presumption Of Harmful Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Lee A. Williams, appeals his convictions for burglary and robbery, contending that the trial court erred in admitting Williams rule evidence. We reverse.
In this case, a tourist identified appellant, both pre-trial and during trial, as the man who shattered the passenger’s window of his car, grabbed his wife’s purse, and escaped on a bicycle. At trial, the State introduced evidence of a collateral crime with which appellant was also charged.
A police officer testified he observed and arrested appellant in the same general location a few hours after the tourist reported the instant crime. Appellant was clutching a purse as he ran from another tourists’ car which had a smashed window. The officer also testified that “smash-and-grab” robberies of this nature were common in this location.
Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in admitting the collateral crime evidence because the two incidents were not sufficiently similar. The State contends that the trial court properly admitted the collateral crime evidence to prove appellant’s identity and explain how he was apprehended. Even if the evidence was improperly admitted, the State argues, the error was harmless.
The Williams rule violation is plain. Relevant evidence of similar crimes may not be admitted merely to prove bad character or propensity to commit crime. § 90.404(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993); Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959). To prevent this, Williams rule analysis must be strictly, not loosely, applied. See Drake v. State, 400 So. 2d 1217 (Fla.1981); Eans v. State, 366 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Proper Williams rule evidence is that which possesses “obvious and telling similarities” to the crime charged. Peek v. State, 488 So. 2d 52 (Fla.1986); Eans, 366 So. 2d at 542. Especially when preferred to prove identity, Williams rule evidence must indicate circumstances so unique as to point only to the defendant. Peek, 488 So. 2d at 55; Drake, 400 So. 2d at 1219.
Here, the collateral crime evidence fails this strict test. While the time, date, location, and offense were somewhat similar, the police offer’s testimony indicated “smash-and-grab” robberies were “common.” The fact both victims were tourists is not compelling because the record fails to show appellant knew he was stealing from tourists at the time. At most, this similarity is nothing more than coincidence.
Further, at least one dissimilarity is clear. In the crime charged, appellant fled on a bicycle, whereas he was seen running from the second crime scene. Because the facts of each crime are not sufficiently similar and certainly do not rise to the level of uniqueness required, see Drake, 400 So. 2d at 1219, the collateral crime is not proper Williams rule evidence.
Finally, the improper Williams rule evidence does not constitute harmless error, as the State contends. Improperly admitting Williams rule evidence is presumed harmful error. Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). The burden remains with the State to prove the error was harmless and clearly did not affect the jury’s verdict. Lewis v. State, 654 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Brisker v. State, 462 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Clark v. State, 378 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Because appellant’s identification rests solely on the victim’s testimony, the improper admission must be considered harmful and appellant is entitled to a new trial. See Lee v. State, 508 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), aff'd, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1988); Garrette v. State, 501 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); cf. McKinney v. State, 462 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (where error was found harmless because the defendant’s identification relied on two eyewitnesses’ testimony).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Kulling v. State, 827 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…(Fla.1986); see also Rodriguez v. State, 675 So. 2d 189, 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (holding that similar crime evidence was not admissible Williams rule evidence because “the two crimes involved facts not unusual to most robberies”); Williams v. State, 662 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that similar crime evidence of a “smash-and-grab” robbery would not be admissible in a “smash-and-grab” robbery case because those types of robberies were not unusual). Furthermore, absent some striking characterist…
-
Smith v. Hooligan's PUB & Oyster BAR, Ltd., 753 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ongs, or acts: Nonetheless, relevancy is the test. If found to be relevant for any purpose save that of showing bad character or propensity, then it should be admitted. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654, 662 (Fla.1959); see also Williams v. State, 662 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The evidence regarding David’s unrelated bad acts was not relevant or essential to prove a material fact. It served solely to demonstrate David’s bad character and propensity for violence, which, under section 90.404(2)(a),…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 675 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…illiams Rule” evidence in this case. In other words, the record does not reflect a sufficient showing of uniqueness of factors relating to the two crimes; the one for which the defendant was on trial and the “Williams Rule” crime. Williams v. State, 662 So. 2d 419, 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (holding that “[pjroper Williams rule evidence is that which possesses ‘obvious and telling similarities’ to the crime charged.”); Gore v. State, 599 So. 2d 978, 984 (Fla.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1003, 113 S.Ct. 610, 121 L.E…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (15 total)
- 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)
- Drake v. State, 400 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1981)
- Peek v. State, 488 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. LEE, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1988)
- Kinchen v. State, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1988)
- Ojeda v. Louie Wainwright, 378 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Garrette v. State, 501 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Bricker v. State, 462 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)