TRACY WILLIAMS, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for aggravated assault with a firearm, aggravated fleeing and eluding, and firearm possession by convicted felon, holding that prior trial testimony was properly admitted under unavailability exception and that a witness statement about future conduct was harmless error.
Prior trial testimony of an unavailable witness may be admitted at retrial when sufficient efforts to locate the witness have been made, and a witness statement speaking in futuro does not constitute improper character evidence.
[1] Prior testimony from a first trial may be admitted in a retrial when the prosecution demonstrates sufficient efforts to locate the witness and establish unavailability.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was retried after his original conviction was overturned. A passenger in appellant's vehicle vacated the vehicle and refused to return, prov…
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 Aggravated Fleeing And Eluding cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J.
Appellant’s original conviction involving this incident was overturned by this court. On retrial, he was convicted of aggravated assault with a firearm, aggravated fleeing and eluding, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He appeals contending the court erred in permitting the testimony of a witness presented during the first trial to be entered in the second trial without sufficient proof of her unavailability and also erred in denying his motion for mistrial when it was revealed that a witness stated that “Tracy wasn’t going to be doing this to her ... anymore.” We affirm.
We find the efforts to locate the witness, the passenger who was in appellant’s vehicle at the time of the incident and who, because she vacated appellant’s vehicle and refused to return, provoked the action which followed, was sufficient to sustain the court’s discretion to permit her prior testimony to be presented in this case.
We believe the witness’ statement that appellant wasn’t going to do that to her anymore speaks in futuro and does not indicate prior bad acts. In any event, in light of all the testimony in this case, even if the statement could be construed to reference prior conduct, it was harmless.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., and PETERSON, JJ., concur.