BYRON WALLER, 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.
Byron Waller appeals his conviction for aggravated battery, challenging the admission of evidence that he threatened witnesses prior to trial. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirms, holding that evidence of witness intimidation is relevant to show consciousness of guilt and desire to evade prosecution.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the witness intimidation evidence. Evidence that a defendant threatens or intimidates witnesses is relevant to show consciousness of guilt and desire to evade prosecution, and is therefore admissible.
[1] A defendant's attempt to intimidate a state witness is relevant and admissible evidence.
[2] Evidence of a defendant's efforts to evade prosecution is admissible to infer consciousness of guilt.
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“a defendant's attempt to intimidate a state witness is relevant and admissible”
Establishes the general admissibility rule for witness intimidation evidence in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWaller was tried for aggravated battery for beating and kicking a victim. The State introduced evidence that, several weeks after the beating, Waller …
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 Consciousness Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
SUAREZ, J.
Byron Waller, (the “defendant”) appeals his conviction and sentence for aggravated battery. We affirm.
The defendant contends that he should receive a new trial because the trial court improperly admitted evidence that he threatened witnesses prior to trial. The State asserts that the evidence was admissible and no error occurred.
The defendant was tried for aggravated battery for beating and kicking the victim. The State filed a notice of intent to rely on Williams Rule1 evidence that the defendant had intimidated or threatened witnesses. At trial, two witnesses testified that the defendant threatened them several weeks after the beating occurred. The defendant approached them, tapped one witness on the shoulder, said that he had heard that they would be testifying, and said “you better watch yourself.” As a general matter, “a defendant’s attempt to intimidate a state witness is relevant and admissible.” Heath v. State, 648 So. 2d 660, 664 (Fla.1994). The Florida Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “[ejvidence that a suspected person in any manner endeavors to evade a threatened prosecution by any ex post fac-to indication of a desire to evade prosecution is admissible against the accused where the relevance of such evidence is based on consciousness of guilt inferred from such actions.” Heath, 648 So. 2d at 664. A trial court has broad discretion to determine the relevance of evidence, and such a determination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Heath, 648 So. 2d at 664.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that the defendant threatened witnesses. The threat is relevant to the defendant’s desire to evade prosecution and his consciousness of guilt. It was properly admitted. See England v. State, 940 So. 2d 389 (Fla.2006) (holding that defendant’s statement that he would Mil an individual if he got him into trouble was admissible because it showed the defendant’s desire to evade prosecution); Heath v. State, 648 So. 2d at 664 (evidence admissible regarding defendant’s plan to escape and Mil two witnesses because they were the only people who could tie him to a murder).
Affirmed.
. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beckman v. State, 230 So. 3d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…State, 122 So. 3d 417, 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (permitting the State to introduce evidence that the defendant, who was charged with robbery, shot the robbery victim the night before trial, finding it showed consciousness of guilt); Waller v. State, 943 So. 2d 865, 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (allowing the State to introduce evidence that the defendant threatened a witness prior to trial, finding “[t]he threat is relevant to the defendant’s desire to evade prosecution and his consciousness of guilt.”). This' Court…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- England v. State, 940 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2006)
- Heath v. State, 648 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1994)