MARLON DECORDOVA JAMES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Marlon Decordova James appealed his conviction of two counts of sexual battery on multiple grounds, including challenges to the admission of Williams Rule evidence, prosecutorial conduct, jury instructions, and sufficiency of evidence. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error on any of the appellant's contentions.
The court held that the Williams Rule evidence was properly admitted as inextricably intertwined with the underlying crime, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial motions where objections were sustained and curative instructions given, the evidence was legally sufficient to support both convictions, and the jury instruction on 'union' was harmless surplusage because digital penetration was undisputed and consent was the sole issue at trial.
[1] Evidence that is inextricably intertwined with the underlying crime is admissible under the Williams Rule.
[2] A trial court acts within its discretion in denying a motion for mistrial when it sustains an objection and provides a curative instruction to the jury.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 complained-of testimony was properly admitted because it was 'inextricably intertwined' with the underlying crime”
Establishes the standard for admitting Williams Rule evidence in sexual battery cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames was convicted of two counts of sexual battery. At trial, Williams Rule evidence (evidence of other crimes or wrongs) was admitted as being inext…
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 Inextricably Intertwined Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*213] PER CURIAM.
Marlon Decordova James appeals his conviction of two counts of sexual battery. We affirm.
First, defendant-appellant James contends that the trial court erred by allowing Williams Rule evidence in the case.* We conclude that the complained-of testimony was properly admitted because it was “ ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the underlying crime.” Shively v. State, 752 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (citations omitted); see also Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966, 968-69 (Fla.1994); Simmons v. State, 790 So. 2d 1177, 1178 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). We reject the defendant’s argument under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), on authority of Herrera-Vega v. State, 888 So. 2d 66, 68-69 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Second, the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the defense motion for mistrial after the prosecutor asked a question about whether the defendant had agreed to provide a DNA sample. The trial court sustained the objection and gave a curative instruction to the jury. See Perez v. State, 856 So. 2d 1074, 1078-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).
Third, the defendant maintains that the prosecutor made an improper closing argument. The defense objection was sustained and the court instructed the jury to disregard it. The parties disagree over whether the subsequent defense motion for mistrial was based on this part of the closing argument. Assuming arguendo that the point was preserved for appellate review, the denial of a motion for mistrial on this issue was well within the trial court’s discretion.
Fourth, the trial court correctly denied the defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on both counts of sexual battery. Reading the record in the required light, the evidence was legally sufficient. See Morrison v. State, 818 So. 2d 432, 451 (Fla.2002).
Fifth, there was no fundamental error in the jury instruction on count one. The instruction on “union” in count one was harmless surplusage. That is so because it was undisputed at trial that there had been digital penetration of the victim. The entire issue at trial was whether this was consensual or nonconsensual. That being so, there could be no fundamental error. See State v. Delva, 575 So. 2d 643, 645 (Fla.1991).
Affirmed.
*
Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959), codified as § 90.404, Fla. Stat. (2002).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
James v. State, 932 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…unt of sexual battery by penetration of the victim’s anus with the petitioner’s penis, and was sentenced to fifteen years incarceration followed by five years of probation. His convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal. James v. State, 901 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). In the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner raises two claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. As we conclude that the petitioner’s second claim is meritorious we grant the petition on this cl…
-
Othlone Russ v. State, 971 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…o holds. See Hipp v. State, 650 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(distinguish-ing Gill); Pineiro v. State, 615 So. 2d 801 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)(same); see also Weaver, 957 So. 2d at 589; Abbott v. State, 958 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); James v. State, 901 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). No counsel is ineffective for failing to raise a point doomed at the outset. See Zack v. State, 911 So. 2d 1190, 1204 (Fla.2005); Rutherford v. Moore, 774 So. 2d 637, 643 (Fla.2000); Brown v. State, 967 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 20…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004)
- D'Angelo v. State, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Batraville Vincent Delva, 575 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 1991)
- Griffin v. State, 639 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1994)
- Morrison v. State, 818 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 2002)
- Simmons v. State, 790 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Marcelino Herreravega v. State, 888 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Shively v. State, 752 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Perez v. State, 856 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)