ALBERTO ARREOLA ALBARRAN, 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.
Alberto Arreola Albarran appeals his conviction for two counts of first-degree murder, challenging the trial court's admission of evidence regarding his possession of a .380 caliber pistol. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of the collateral weapon was properly admitted as it was inextricably intertwined with the discovery of the murder weapon and relevant to establish dominion and control.
The trial court properly admitted evidence of Albarran's possession of the .380 caliber pistol because it was inextricably intertwined with the discovery of the murder weapon and was relevant to show dominion and control over the murder weapon, thereby rebutting his claim that both guns belonged to Mendoza.
[1] Evidence of a defendant's possession of a firearm is admissible when it is inextricably intertwined with the discovery of the murder weapon and relevant to establishing d…
[2] Possession of a firearm found during a traffic stop can be admissible to rebut a defendant's claim that the firearm belonged to another individual.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The court ruled that the evidence of Albarran's possession of the .380 caliber pistol was "inextricably intertwined" with the discovery of the murder weapon, and that it was relevant to show who had "dominion and control" of the murder weapon.”
Establishes the legal standard for admitting collateral evidence—the inextricably intertwined test and the relevance of showing dominion and control.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 14, 1999, Lidia Reyes (five months pregnant) and Jorge Cruz were shot and killed at their DeLeon Springs residence. During a traffic stop on J…
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
GRIFFIN, J.
Alberto Arreola Albarran [“Albarran”] appeals his conviction for two counts of first-degree murder. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court improperly admitted collateral crimes evidence.
Lidia Reyes [“Reyes”], who was five months pregnant, and Jorge Cruz [“Cruz”] were shot to death at their DeLeon Springs residence on June 14, 1999. A traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Albarran was conducted in Daytona Beach on June 26, 1999. The vehicle, which was owned by Albarran’s mother, had three occupants, and two guns were found during the stop. One gun was a chrome .380 caliber Colt pistol which Albarran was carrying in his waistband. Matching bullets were found in his pocket. The second gun was a blue steel 9 mm Ruger pistol which was found under the front passenger seat. Testing revealed that the 9 millimeter pistol had been used to kill Reyes and Cruz. Eventually, Albarran admitted being in the Reyes/Cruz residence, but said that he was not responsible for the victims’ deaths. Instead, he said that he had accompanied a friend named Adolpho Mendoza [“Mendoza”] to the victims’ residence to collect on a $30,000 debt that Mendoza was owed for marijuana. Albarran admitted that he entered the victims’ residence with Mendoza, who pulled a gun on the victims. He also admitted he had searched Cruz for weapons, emptying his pockets (and in the process leaving his fingerprints on a grocery receipt found at the scene).
Albarran claimed he then left the residence, and while outside, heard several shots. When he ran back inside, he saw that Mendoza had killed the victims. Albarran said that he did not tell police about the murders because Mendoza threatened to kill him. He claimed that both guns found during the traffic stop belonged to Mendoza, and that Mendoza had given him the .380 caliber pistol.
The court ruled that the evidence of Albarran’s possession of the .380 caliber pistol was “inextricably intertwined” with the discovery of the murder weapon, and that it was relevant to show who had “dominion and control” of the murder weapon. We find no reversible error in the admission of this evidence. The murder weapon was found under the passenger seat of the van, which was occupied by more than one person when the stop occurred. Proof that Albarran was actually carrying the .380 caliber handgun in his waistband tended to rebut his claim that both guns found in the vehicle on June 26 belonged to Mendoza.
AFFIRMED.
THOMPSON and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rollin Monestime v. State, 41 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…970 (Fla.1994). We conclude that the rifle was inextricably intertwined with the crimes charged, and the photograph of the rifle was cer [*1113] tainly necessary to establish the context out of which the charged crimes arose. See Albarran v. State, 890 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Vail v. State, 890 So. 2d 373, 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Baso v. State, 433 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The testimony regarding the hidden gun, the money and cocaine provided critical context to the jury’s understanding of the…
-
Scruggs v. State, 955 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Albarran v. State, 890 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).…