TIAN PEREZ, 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 reversed Perez's battery conviction on a law enforcement officer because the trial court admitted evidence of collateral crimes (threats made ten days after the incident) for which Perez was later acquitted. The reversal was required under Florida law prohibiting the state from presenting evidence of crimes for which a defendant has been acquitted.
The admission of evidence of collateral crimes of which the defendant was acquitted is error requiring reversal for a new trial. The state may not present evidence of crimes for which the defendant has been acquitted, even if the acquittal occurs after the trial in which the evidence was admitted.
[1] Evidence of collateral crimes for which a defendant has been acquitted is inadmissible.
[2] The admission of evidence of collateral crimes for which a defendant was subsequently acquitted constitutes reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“It is inconsistent with the notions of fair trial for the state to force a defendant to resurrect a prior defense against a crime for which he is not on trial.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that the state cannot present evidence of collateral crimes against a defendant, drawn from State v. Perkins.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePerez was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer. During trial, the court admitted evidence that approximately ten days after the charged c…
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 Battery On A Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
During appellant’s trial in which he was charged with battery on a law enforcement officer, the court admitted evidence of collateral crimes. After appellant’s convictions he was acquitted of the charges based on the collateral crimes. The acquittal requires us to reverse for a new trial.
The evidence at issue was to the effect that, about ten days after the occurrence of the crime charged, appellant had threatened to kill the victim and her children. After appellant was convicted, he was charged with corruption by threat and tampering with a witness, based on the threats, but was acquitted of those charges.
The acquittal was brought to our attention by appellant in a motion to supplement the record, which was not opposed by the state. The state does not deny that appellant was acquitted of the collateral crimes, nor has it argued that we should not consider this fact, which is technically outside the record, on this direct appeal. We accordingly address it, as the Florida Supreme Court did under similar circumstances in Pomeranz v. State, 703 So. 2d 465 n. 5 (Fla.1997).
In State v. Perkins, 349 So. 2d 161, 163 (Fla.1977), the Florida Supreme Court held that the state may not present evidence of collateral crimes of which the defendant has been acquitted, explaining:
It is inconsistent with the notions of fair trial for the state to force a defendant to resurrect a prior defense against a crime for which he is not on trial.
In Perkins the acquittal of the collateral crimes had occurred prior to the trial at which the evidence of the collateral crimes had been admitted.
In Burr v. State, 576 So. 2d 278 (Fla.1991), the acquittal of collateral crimes had occurred after the trial, but the Florida Supreme Court held, on postconviction relief in a death penalty case, that the admission of evidence of the collateral crimes in the sentencing phase was error. The Burr court cited Perkins and explained that the holding of Perkins was based on Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution (due process, double jeopardy).1
We reverse for a new trial.
POLEN, C.J., and STEVENSON, J„ concur. . Evidence of a crime for which a defendant had already been acquitted was held admissible in Amoros v. State, 531 So. 2d 1256 (Fla.1988), because it was extremely relevant to establish that the gun used in the murder charged was the same gun used by the defendant to kill someone on a prior occasion. Evidence was admitted that the defendant had been acquitted of the prior killing, and the jury was instructed to consider the prior shooting for the limited purpose of proving identity. Assuming Amoros, which distinguished Perkins, has not been silently overruled by Burr, we conclude that the present case is controlled by Burr. The state does not rely on Amoros.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freddrick Hines v. State, 983 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…e record in the trial resulting in appellant’s acquittal were made a part of the record in this appeal, and we can perceive no good reason not to address the issue now. Moreover, we note that the Fourth District did precisely that in Perez v. State, 801 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), reversing Perez’ conviction based on Burr II. IV. Accordingly, we conclude, as did the Fourth District in Perez, that Burr II requires that we reverse appellant’s conviction and remand for a new trial. Although we do so, we ar…
-
Emmory Moore v. State, 127 So. 3d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…d, the Burr II court held that it was also error to admit evidence of a collateral crime for which the defendant was subsequently acquitted. Burr II, 576 So. 2d at 280 (citing State v. Perkins, 349 So. 2d 161, 163-64 (Fla.1977)). In Perez v. State, 801 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), this Court was faced with the same issue presented here by Moore. There, we held that Burr II compelled reversal when the trial court admitted evidence of a collateral crime for which the defendant was subsequently acquitted. Id…
Authorities Cited
- Pomeranz v. State, 703 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1997)
- Henry v. Clifton et ux., 349 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1976)
- Amoros v. State, 531 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1988)
- Burr v. State, 576 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1991)