ANTHONY PRECIOSE, 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 held that the admission of evidence of other forged checks, without proof connecting the defendant to those checks, was improper.
The defendant was convicted of uttering a forged instrument. The state introduced two other forged checks belonging to the victim, cashed in another 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 Collateral Crime Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
Appellant was convicted of uttering a forged instrument. The instrument was a check in the amount of $60.50, containing the forged signature of the victim, which was presented for cashing at a Publix store. As part of the state’s case, the trial court allowed into evidence two other checks belonging to the victim, both in the amount of $60.50 which had been cashed at a Publix in a different county. There was no evidence to connect appellant to those two checks.
The two checks were admitted under Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959) as evidence of collateral crimes. See also § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000). One of the requirements for admitting Williams rule evidence is that there must be clear and convincing proof that the defendant committed the collateral crimes. State v. Norris, 168 So. 2d 541 (Fla.1964); Smith v. State, 743 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
Because there was no proof connecting appellant with the collateral forgeries, the evidence should not have been admitted. We do not agree with the state that this evidence was harmless, and therefore reverse for a new trial.
GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henrion v. State, 895 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…v. State, 700 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). The offering party is required to prove the defendant’s connection with the similar act by clear and convincing evidence. Bryant v. State, 787 So. 2d 904, 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Preciose v. State, 829 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Acevedo v. State, 787 So. 2d 127, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In order for evidence of a collateral act to be admissible “there must be proof of a connection between the defendant and the collateral occurrences. In this respect mere…
-
Hernandez v. State, 16 So. 3d 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…So. 2d 901, 907-08 (Fla.2002) (citations omitted). Additionally, “[o]ne of the requirements for admitting Williams rule evidence is that there must be clear and convincing proof that the defendant committed the collateral crimes.” Preciose v. State, 829 So. 2d 381, 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (citation omitted). To meet the clear and convincing standard, “[t]he evidence must be credible; the memories of the witnesses must be clear and without confusion; and the sum total of the evidence must be of sufficient weig…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Ethorn Buie v. L. D. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 168 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1964)
- State v. Jovanek Miller, 743 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)