LATOYA MAHONEY-SMITH, 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.
Appellant's conviction for stalking, aggravated stalking, and injunction violations was affirmed because the trial court properly admitted evidence of prior bad acts, correctly refused to instruct on attempted violation, and the record contained sufficient evidence of all elements including malice and harassment.
Evidence of prior bad acts may be admitted when inextricably intertwined with the charged crimes and necessary to describe the deed, context, or events leading to the charges, and no instruction on attempted violation is required when only completed offenses are proven.
[1] Evidence of prior bad acts is admissible in stalking and injunction violation cases when inextricably intertwined with the charged crimes and necessary to describe the de…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLatoya Mahoney-Smith was convicted of stalking, aggravated stalking, and multiple violations of an injunction against repeat violence.…
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 Aggravated Stalking cases and more on FLexlaw
Latoya Mahoney-Smith appeals from her conviction and sentence for stalking, aggravated stalking, and multiple violations of an injunction against repeat violence claiming that the trial court erred (1) in permitting the state to introduce testimony about her past behavior, (2) in failing to instruct the jury on attempted violation of an injunction, and (3) in failing to enter a judgment of acquittal because the State failed to prove malice, harassment, or emotional distress. Because the record demonstrates facts sufficient to establish each element of the charges against Mahoney-Smith and because we find no error in either the trial court’s evidentiary rulings or the jury instructions given, we affirm. See Dorsett v. State, 944 So.2d 1207, 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (confirming that evidence of prior bad acts may be admitted where it is inextricably intertwined with the charges being prosecuted and thus necessary to adequately describe the deed; to provide an intelligent account of the crimes charged; to establish the entire context out of which the charged crimes arose; or to adequately describe the events leading up to the charged crimes); see also Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.510(a) (confirming that the court “shall not instruct the jury if there is no evidence to support the attempt and the only evidence proves a completed offense”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahoney-Smith v. State, 78 So. 3d 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…ief, as these issues are meritless.1 Affirmed. . Mahoney-Smith has been before this Court twice before, challenging her conviction and sentence. She first appealed her conviction and sentence, which this Court affirmed. See Mahoney-Smith v. State, 7 So. 3d 644 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). She then filed a subsequent appeal, which this Court ultimately dismissed.…
Authorities Cited
- Dorsett v. State, 944 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)