TIMOTHY MAURICE EVANS, 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.
Timothy Evans was convicted of robbery with a weapon for attacking a 72-year-old woman in a parking lot. The Fourth District affirmed his conviction and the trial court's admission of evidence of a similar robbery committed against another woman at the same location one and a half weeks later, finding the crimes shared sufficient distinctive characteristics to be admissible.
The trial court did not err in admitting the similar fact evidence because the two robberies shared sufficient distinctive common characteristics—daytime attacks in the same location within two weeks, involving a young Black male with noteworthy facial features, targeting older women alone at their cars, using threats with a sharp object at the throat, taking purses and jewelry, and using specific verbal threats—such that the pattern was sufficiently unique to be relevant and probative without constituting impermissible character or propensity evidence. The identification issues were also affirmed.
[1] Similar fact evidence is admissible if relevant to a material fact in issue and not offered solely to prove bad character or criminal propensity.
[2] For similar fact evidence to be relevant, the points of similarity must be comparable and possess a special character that points to the defendant.
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 intelligence“Similar fact evidence is admissible as long as it is relevant to a material fact in issue and is not admitted solely to show bad character or criminal propensity.”
States the legal standard governing admissibility of evidence of collateral crimes under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA 72-year-old woman was attacked while entering her car at a medical center parking lot in mid-afternoon. A young Black male in his early twenties wit…
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 Fla. Stat. § 90.404(2)(A) Construction cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, C.J.
We affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence for robbery with a weapon. The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of a collateral crime involving similar facts.
The record reflects that the seventy-two-year-old victim was entering her car in a medical center parking lot in mid-afternoon. As she began to close the door, a man grabbed her arm. He placed a very sharp object, either a screwdriver or a knife, at her throat and said, “I am going to kill you.” He knelt between the door and the driver’s seat where she sat. The assailant was a young black male in his early twenties, between 5'8" and 5'9'' tall, with “bulgy” eyes, and large, protruded ears. He was very excited. The assailant ripped off her jewelry, taking her ring and bracelet, and continuously threatened her, stating “Fucking bitch, I am going to kill you.” As he reached for her purse, he made a small cut on her neck. He then ran away.
One and one-half weeks later, around 7:45 a.m., a fifty-eight-year-old woman arrived at the same medical center for a doctor’s appointment. As she opened the door of her car, a young black male in his early twenties, between 5'6" and 5'8" tall, with big, frightening eyes, ran up to her. He stood at the driver’s door, pinning her so that she could not get out of the car, and placed a long, steel knife at her throat. His face was about a foot away from hers. He screamed at her to give him everything or he would “stick her” and began to remove her jewelry. The assailant ordered her to take off her diamond earrings, and she complied. He continued swearing and stating, “Move fast bitch, I will stick this in you.” He then pushed her, grabbed her purse, and ran. Both victims identified Appellant as the assailant. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion to exclude the similar fact evidence.
Appellant argues that the dissimilarities between these two crimes renders the collateral crime evidence inadmissible. Similar fact evidence is admissible as long as it is relevant to a material fact in issue and is not admitted solely to show bad character or criminal propensity. § 90.404(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1997); Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). Generally, in order for the similar facts to be relevant, the points of similarity must be comparable and have some special character as to point to the defendant. See Gore v. State, 599 So. 2d 978, 983 (Fla.1992); Buenoano v. State, 527 So. 2d 194 (Fla.1988).
Here, both robberies took place during the daytime, less than two weeks apart in the same parking lot. Further, in both; (1) the assailant was a young black, male with noteworthy eyes; (2) the assailant robbed the victims while they were just entering or leaving their automobiles; (3) he held a sharp object to their throats and verbally swore at them, referring to them as “bitch;” (4) he took their purses and removed and stole their jewelry; (5) the victims were older women; and (6) the victims were alone.
These common points, when considered in conjunction with each other, establish a sufficiently unique pattern of criminal activity. See Gore, 599 So. 2d at 984. Although there are also some dissimilarities of mere happenstance, these do not render the evidence inadmissible. See Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186, 194 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 1535, 140 L.Ed.2d 685 (1998); Black v. State, 630 So. 2d 609, 617-18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Therefore, given the absence of substantial dissimilarities and the presence of sufficient similarities, the trial court did not err in admitting the collateral crime evidence in this case.
As to the identification issues raised, we also affirm.
WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blevins v. State, 756 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…e crimes are not exactly the same. However, that fact alone does not preclude admission of collateral crime evidence and, indeed, [*1054] would erect an almost impossible standard of admissibility. Id. at 195 (citing Gore); see also Evans v. State, 723 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). In this case, the similarity between the incident involving Robert Murray and this crime consisted of Blevins’ forced entry through a screen in the kitchen area in the mid-morning of the same day in the same neighborhood and hi…
-
Corinthian v. State, 761 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…s and affirm the conviction for robbery with a firearm in case number 4D99-3418 and for robbery with a firearm in case number 4D99-3267. There was no error in the admission of collateral crime evidence on the issue of identity. See Evans v. State, 723 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Black v. State, 630 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). As in Evans and Black, there are numerous similarities between the collateral crimes admitted and the crimes for which Corinthian was on trial. The similarities include: (1) al…
-
Cardona v. State, 835 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…CA 2002). See also Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla.1997). This does not mean, however, that the similar fact evidence must rise to the level of actual fingerprint evidence to be admissible. These principles are illustrated in Evans v. State, 723 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), where the district court held that two robberies were sufficiently similar to satisfy the requirements for similar fact evidence. There, both robberies took place during the day; two weeks apart; the assailant was a young black…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Oba Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1997)
- Judias v. Buenoano, 527 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1988)
- Gore v. State, 599 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1992)
- Black v. State, 630 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)