ROY WOMBLES, APPELLANT,

v.

DON GLADISH AND JAMES V. CROSBY, JR., SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• Fike v. State, 4 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
  …two offenses. “The admission of improper collateral crime evidence is presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity to commit the crime as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.” Mims v. State, 872 So. 2d 453, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quoting Sims v. State, 839 So. 2d 807, 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). For the harmless error rule to apply, the burden remains with the State to prove that there is “ ‘no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the c…
• Henrion v. State, 895 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
  …04). However, “[t]he admission of improper collateral crime evidence is presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity to commit the crime as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.” Mims v. State, 872 So. 2d 453, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (quoting Sims v. State, 839 So. 2d 807, 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)). For the harmless error rule to apply, the State must prove that there is “ ‘no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction.’ ” Mims, 87…
• Williamson v. State, 894 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
  …924.051(7), Fla. Stat. (2004). For the harmless error rule to apply, the State must prove there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant’s conviction. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); Mims v. State, 872 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Williams. After a review of the testimony, documentary and physical evidence, and expert opinions offered in this case, we are convinced that the State demonstrated that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally,…

Authorities Cited

• Burgess v. Crosby, 870 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)