BRAD KING, STATE ATTORNEY, ETC. PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT RAU, RESPONDENT
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 State of Florida sought certiorari review of a trial court order excluding evidence of the first of two fraud counts from trial of the second count. The appellate court granted the petition, holding that evidence of the first incident was inseparable from and relevant to the second incident because the druggist's suspicion arose from recognizing the defendant from the first transaction.
The trial court's order excluding evidence of the first incident from trial of the second incident is vacated. Evidence of the first incident is relevant and admissible because the facts are inseparable—the druggist's suspicion that led to the discovery of both crimes arose directly from recognizing the defendant from the first transaction.
[1] Evidence of prior similar criminal acts is admissible when it is inextricably intertwined with the facts of the charged offense and is necessary to establish the context…
[2] The common elements of crimes, including the defendant, location, modus operandi, and prescribing physician, are determinative of the relevance of prior similar acts.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The facts surrounding the first crime are inseparable from the second crime. It was the druggist's familiarity with the facts surrounding the first incident that caused the druggist's suspicion.”
Establishes the core holding that the evidence is inseparable and necessary to understand how the second crime was discovered.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRau was charged with two counts of acquiring controlled substances by fraud. In the first incident, he filled a prescription while identifying himself…
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 Severance Of Counts cases and more on FLexlaw
Rau is charged with two counts of acquiring a controlled substance by fraud. The information alleges that he had a prescription for a controlled substance filled at a drugstore while identifying himself as Robert Wheatley and supplying the druggist with a phone number. Approximately 10 days later, Rau went to the same drug store to have another prescription filled for drugs prescribed for a Charlotte Kastter. That prescription as well as the earlier one bore the same prescribing doctor’s name. The same phone number was supplied to the same druggist on both occasions. The druggist who recognized Rau from the first visit became suspicious when Rau denied knowing Robert Wheatley, the name supplied with the phone number on the earlier visit. The druggist then called the prescribing physician and learned that both prescriptions had been stolen. That information led to Rau’s arrest.
Rau moved to exclude evidence of the first incident from the trial of the second incident. The trial court granted the motion and the state appealed.
We grant the state’s petition and issue the writ. The facts surrounding the first crime are inseparable from the second crime. It was the druggist’s familiarity with the facts surrounding the first incident that caused the druggist’s suspicion. Facts surrounding the first incident need to be conveyed to the finder of fact in order to explain the circumstances leading to Rau’s arrest after the second incident. The evidence of the earlier incident, just 10 days prior to Rau’s arrest is relevant to establish the entire context out of which the criminal action occurred. It is the common elements of the crimes that determine relevance. Indeed, the crimes were nearly identical: the same defendant, drugstore, modus operands druggist, and the same prescribing physician. See State v. Shaw, 730 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 744 So. 2d 456 (Fla.1999); State v. Cohens, 701 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); State v. Perez, 672 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
The order suppressing evidence of the first incident in the trial of the second incident is vacated and we remand for further proceedings.
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED; REMANDED.
W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . We deny certiorari review of the pretrial order severing the two counts. An interlocutory order of this nature is not enumerated in Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c)(1) as an appealable order, nor is it an appropriate subject for a petition for certiorari. See State v. Lewek, 656 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Cohens, 701 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- State v. Lewek, 656 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- State v. Shaw, 730 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- State v. Perez, 672 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)