RICKY LANE CANNON, 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.
Ricky Lane Cannon was convicted of armed robbery but appealed, arguing the trial court improperly admitted evidence of a second, uncharged robbery and allowed it to become a prominent feature of trial. The First District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed, holding that the similar-fact evidence lacked sufficient distinguishing characteristics and that the prosecution's voluminous references to the collateral crime made it a focus of the trial despite a limiting instruction.
The court held that the admission of collateral crime evidence was error because there were no unique or particularly unusual characteristics shared by the two robberies. Additionally, the collateral crime became a feature of trial through the prosecution's voluminous references in opening statements, witness testimony, and closing arguments, which violated the requirement that such evidence be limited and not dominate the proceedings.
[1] Admission of collateral crime evidence is error when the offenses lack unique or particularly unusual characteristics that render them similar.
[2] Evidence of a collateral crime may not be allowed to become a feature of the trial.
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“There was no unique or particularly unusual characteristic of either robbery so as to render the offenses similar in the context of collateral crimes evidence; thus, the admission of the collateral crime evidence constituted error.”
Establishes that the charged robbery and collateral robbery lacked sufficient similarity for the evidence to be admissible under Florida's similar-fact rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCannon was charged with armed robbery. The prosecution introduced evidence of a second, uncharged robbery as collateral crimes evidence. Four of the s…
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 Identity Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges his conviction for armed robbery. Among other issues, he asserts the trial court erred in allowing similar fact evidence of a second robbery as well as allowing the second robbery to become a feature of the trial. We agree with appellant as to both assertions.
There was no unique or particularly unusual characteristic of either robbery so as to render the offenses similar in the context of collateral crimes evidence; thus, the admission of the collateral crime evidence constituted error. Carbonell v. State, 47 So.3d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
In addition, evidence involving a collateral crime may not be allowed to become a “feature of the trial.” Billie v. State, 863 So.2d 323, 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); see also Bush v. State, 690 So.2d 670, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In measuring whether collateral crimes evidence becomes a feature of a trial, appellate courts “do not solely measure the number of references the prosecution made to such evidence.” Wright v. State, 19 So.3d 277, 293 (Fla.2009) (citing Morrow v. State, 931 So.2d 1021, 1022-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). However, “voluminous references” to a collateral crime are an indication that the non-charged crime has become the focus of a trial. Id. (citing Fitzsimmons v. State, 935 So.2d 125, 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)).
Here, 4 of the 6 State witnesses testified as to the collateral robbery. Furthei’, the collateral crime was discussed for approximately half of the State’s opening and closing statements. In addition, a videotape of the collateral robbery was introduced into evidence and replayed for the jury during closing. While the trial court and the State informed the jury this offense was being introduced for identity only, the use of a cautionary instruction is only one requirement for the trial court; the other is to limit the testimony so it does not become a feature of the trial. Morrow, 931 So.2d at 1022 (reversing even where limiting instruction was given to the State because the State ignored the instruction and made repeated references to the collateral crime). Given the substantial number of references to the collateral crime during opening statements, witness testimony, and closing arguments, we are required to reverse.
REVERSED.
HAWKES and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pitts v. State, 263 So. 3d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
-
Kroll v. State, 221 So. 3d 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…occupied dwelling and grand theft. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in admitting Williams Rule evidence that he committed a burglary of a different residence because that evidence became a feature of the trial. See Cannon v. State, 51 So. 3d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We also accept the State’s concession that the Williams Rule evidence should not have been admitted because the facts of the collateral crime and the underlying crime were not sufficiently similar, and the points of simila…
-
Hunt v. State (Fla. 2025)…e"). Although the State mentioned these crimes during trial to establish the necessary context for the murders, the State was limited to introducing relevant evidence that did not transcend the bounds of the charges being tried. See Cannon v. State, 51 So. 3d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding that evidence of a collateral crime became a feature of the trial when it was discussed for approximately half of the opening and closing statements, two-thirds of the witnesses testified about it, and video of the…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tavares J. Wright v. State, 19 So. 3d 277 (Fla. 2009)
- Fitzsimmons v. State, 935 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Billie v. State, 863 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Bush v. State, 690 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Britton v. State, 931 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Carbonell v. State, 47 So. 3d 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)