MICHAEL DENSON, 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 evidence of a collateral crime to prove identity because the crimes lacked unique characteristics.
The defendant was convicted of robbery with a firearm. The trial court admitted evidence of a collateral crime to prove identity.…
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 Proof Of Identity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Defendant appeals his conviction and sentence for robbery with a firearm. He asserts the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a collateral crime to prove identity, where the collateral crime and the crime charged did not share any unique characteristics. We agree and reverse.
“For collateral crimes to be admissible there must be something so unique or particularly unusual about the perpetrator or his modus operandi that introduction of the collateral crimes evidence would tend to establish that he committed the crime charged.” Buenoano v. State, 527 So. 2d 194, 197 (Fla.1988). Furthermore, the similarities in an identity case must be so unusual so as to point only to the defendant. See Drake v. State, 400 So. 2d 1217, 1219 (Fla.1981).
In the present case, the conduct during the commissions of the crimes was that of a typical purse-snatching. As such, nothing unique or particularly unusual occurred during the commissions of the crime charged and the collateral crime. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the collateral crime evidence. In addition, because the admission of collateral crimes is presumptively harmful, see Holland v. State, 636 So. 2d 1289, 1293 (Fla.1994), and the crimes in the present case did not share any uniqueness, we cannot say the error was harmless. See Smith v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2344, 743 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GUNTHER, FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Drake v. State, 400 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1981)
- Judias v. Buenoano, 527 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Jovanek Miller, 743 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Holland v. State, 636 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 1994)