BUD BOYETT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Bud Boyett was jointly indicted for burglary. At trial, the prosecution was permitted to introduce testimony about several other burglaries allegedly committed by Boyett and his codefendant, despite Boyett's objection. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that evidence of unrelated prior crimes is irrelevant and inadmissible absent a recognized exception.
Evidence of prior crimes wholly independent of and unconnected to the charged crime is irrelevant and inadmissible, except within recognized exceptions. The trial court's jury instruction cautioning that the evidence was only relevant to the charged offense did not render the erroneous admission of such testimony harmless error.
“the general rule is that, on a prosecution for a particular crime, evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that the accused has committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial, even though it is a crime of the same sort, is irrelevant and inadmissible”
States the fundamental rule that prior crimes are inadmissible absent exception
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoyett and Allen Eiland were jointly indicted for breaking and entering a store. Eiland pleaded guilty and testified for the State that he and Boyett …
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 Other Crimes cases and more on FLexlaw
Brown, J.
In this case the plaintiff in error w&s indicted jointly with one Allen Eiland for breaking and entering a store building. The co-defendant, Eiland, plead guilty and upon the trial the State was permitted, over the plaintiff in error’s objection, to prove by Eiland that he and plaintiff in error had committed several other burglaries during a period of several months preceding the crime for which plaintiff in error was being tried. One of these offenses the witness said had been committed in this same store and that a certain hole in a partition between this store and an adjoining office had been made by the plaintiff in error at that'time, and a board had subsequently been nailed over it; that it was through this same hole that the witness entered, after removing the board, at the time the offense being tried was committed. This connection, though slight, between these two offenses probably rendered the testimony as to this particular prior offense admissible. It tended to show a knowledge on the part of both defendants, including the one on trial, of an easy means of access from the office into the store. But as to the other offenses testified to by this witness as having been committed by the plaintiff in error and himself, no connection whatever is shown with the particular offense here involved.
The general rule is that, on a prosecution for a particular crime, evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that the accused has committed another crime wholly independent of that for which he is on trial, even though it is a crime of the same sort, is irrelevant and inadmissible. Evidence that a defendant has committed a similar crime, or one equally grave, has a tendency to promote a more ready belief by tbe jury that he might have committed the one with which he is charged, thereby predisposing the mind of the juror to believe the prisoner guilty.
While there are several well recognized exceptions to the general rule above mentioned, this case does not appear to fall within the operation of any of them. The general rule should be strictly enforced and should not be departed from in any case unless the particular case comes within one of the recognized exceptions and clearly justifies such a departure. See Nickels v. State, 90 Fla., 659, 106 So. 479, and other cases cited in Fla. Digest, Vol. 1, Page 587; Vol. 4, 198; 16 C. J. 586-592; 9 C. J. 1069.
We do not consider that Wallace v. State, 41 Fla., 547, 26 So. 713; Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94, 41 So. 385; Woolridge v. State, 49 Fla. 137, 38 So. 3, are contrary to the views expressed.
The charge of the trial judge, in which he cautioned the jury that the defendant was only being tried for the particular offense alleged in the indictment and that the evidence of the other offenses was only to be considered by them for whatever light they might shed upon the offense for which the defendant was being tried, was not sufficient to render the admission of such testimony harmless error. The admission of testimony of this character, when unauthorized, is generally held to constitute harmful error, and we must so hold here.
Reversed.
Ellis, C. J., and Strum, J., concur. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Coppolino v. State, 223 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)…endant or as indicating that he is the type of person who is likely to commit a crime.” This instruction tended to mitigate any prejudice that resulted from the erroneous admission of Mrs. Farber’s testimony. In Boyett v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 597, 116 So. 476, the court pointed out one of the dangers of admitting evidence of similar crimes. The court stated at page 476: “Evidence that a defendant has committed a similar crime, or one equally [*74] grave, has a tendency to promote a more ready belief by…
-
Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…, 191 So. 771; Adams v. State, 1943, 153 Fla. 68, 13 So. 2d 610. And this is true even though the offenses are similar or of like nature. Denton v. State, 1913, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914; Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519; Boyett v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 597, 116 So. 476; Varnum v. State, 1939, 137 Fla. 438, 188 So. 346; Padgett v. State, Fla.1951, 53 So. 2d 106; Fastow v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 110; Smith v. State, Fla.1951, 54 So. 2d 37. Likewise, any evidence that has no more attributes of admiss…
-
Coston v. State, 139 Fla. 250 (Fla. 1939)…n though it is a crime of 'the same sort, is irrelevant anti inadmissible. See Varnum v. State, opinion filed April 28; 1939, not yet reported; Hartman v. State, 121 Fla. 627, 164 So. 354; Gunnels v. State, 96 Fla. 659, 118 So. 919; Boyett v. State, 95 Fla. 597, 116 So. 476; Gafford v. State, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602; Denton v. State, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914; Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519; Langford v. State, 33 Fla. 233, 14 So. 815; Roberson v. State, 40 F…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wallace v. State, 26 So. 713 (Fla. 1899)
- Nickels v. State, 106 So. 479 (Fla. 1925)
- Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1906)
- Wooldridge v. State, 49 Fla. 137 (Fla. 1905)