HERBERT JONES, 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.
On remand from the Florida Supreme Court, the First District Court of Appeal reversed Herbert Jones's conviction for sexual battery and robbery, finding that improperly admitted collateral crime evidence (testimony about a kidnapping and possession of the victim's ATM card) was not harmless error under the standard established in State v. DiGuilio.
The court reversed Jones's convictions, holding that the improperly admitted collateral crime evidence was not harmless error because the court could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.
[1] Improperly admitted collateral crime evidence is subject to harmless error analysis.
[2] An error is harmful if the appellate court cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict.
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“If the appellate court cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict, then the error is by definition harmful.”
Establishes the harmless error standard that must be applied to improperly admitted collateral crime evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJones was charged with sexual battery and robbery. At trial, over Jones's objection, the State presented testimony from a witness that Jones had kidna…
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 Collateral Crime Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In Jones v. State, 715 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), this court, pursuant to section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes (1997), affirmed appellant’s conviction because he could not demonstrate that his trial contained prejudicial error. However, we certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court to determine whether 924.051(7) had abrogated harmless error review under State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). The Court quashed our decision and remanded for further consideration under DiGuilio and State v. Lee, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1988). Because we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of collateral crime evidence did not affect the verdict, we reverse.
Appellant was charged with sexual battery and robbery. During the trial, the State, over appellant’s objection, elicited testimony from a witness who said that appellant kidnapped her the day after the alleged rape and robbery and that the witness saw the rape victim’s ATM card in appellant’s possession. During its closing arguments, the State again referred to the alleged next-day kidnapping of the witness.
Improperly introduced collateral crime evidence is subject to harmless error analysis under DiGuilio. See Lee, 531 So. 2d at 136. “If the appellate court cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict, then the error is by definition harmful.” Id. (citing DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d at 1139). The question is not whether the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming or whether the appellate court believes that the defendant would be convicted in a new trial without the collateral crime evidence. See id. at 136-37.
In this case, the collateral crime evidence did very little to establish that appellant had committed sexual battery and robbery the day before the kidnapping. The evidence slightly bolstered the State’s proof of identity, and it connected appellant to the victim through the ATM card. However, the State had no shortage of evidence that already established these two issues, and the admission of this bad character evidence was highly prejudicial to appellant. When the prosecutor spoke of the kidnapping again during closing arguments, the collateral crime evidence received undue emphasis and had become a focal point of the trial. See id. at 137-38.
Accordingly, we must REVERSE appellant’s convictions and REMAND for a new trial.
MINER, ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 140 So. 3d 1067 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…o testimony and evidence concerning the prior incidents. Under these circumstances, we are unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the erroneous admission of the Williams rule evidence did not contribute to the verdict. See Jones v. State, 754 So. 2d 792, 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we reverse Jackson’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial. REVERSED and REMANDED for a new trial. BENTON and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur. . Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d…
-
McKEEHAN v. State, 838 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…f fact.” Goodwin v. State, 751 So. 2d 537, 542 (Fla.1999) (quoting State v. Lee, 531 So. 2d 133,137 (Fla.1988)). The question, therefore, is not whether the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming. Lee, 531 So. 2d at 136-37; Jones v. State, 754 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). A reviewing court “must resist the temptation to make its own determination of whether a guilty verdict could be sustained by excluding the impermissible evidence and examining only the permissible evidence.” Goodwin, 751 So. 2d…
-
Williams v. State, 899 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…a. 4th DCA 2001). In addition, the state and appellant disagree about when he was released from supervision, and resolution of this claim would require an evidentiary hearing. See Maynard v. State, 763 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Black v. State, 754 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court’s order without prejudice for appellant to file a rule 3.850 motion. FARMER, C.J., STONE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- State v. LEE, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1988)
- Kinchen v. State, 531 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1988)
- Jones v. State, 715 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Bobo v. State, 715 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)