JOSEPH WILBUR, 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.
Joseph Wilbur appeals his cocaine sale conviction, challenging the trial court's admission of Williams Rule evidence regarding two prior drug sales to the same confidential informant. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the prior offense evidence inadmissible because it had no relevance beyond showing bad character and propensity to commit crimes.
The trial court erred in admitting the Williams Rule evidence because the prior offenses were not relevant to prove identity or any other material fact; they were admitted solely to demonstrate bad character and propensity to commit crimes, which is impermissible.
[1] Similar fact evidence is inadmissible if its sole relevancy is to establish the accused's bad character or propensity to commit crimes.
[2] For similar fact evidence to be legally relevant to show identity, there must be identifiable points of similarity that are unusual or have a special character pointing t…
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“Similar fact evidence is admissible if relevant to a fact in issue, even though it also points to the commission of a separate crime. Such evidence is inadmissible, however, if its sole relevancy is to establish bad character on the part of the accused.”
Establishes the foundational rule for admitting similar fact evidence, requiring relevance beyond mere propensity or bad character.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilbur was charged with selling cocaine to a confidential informant. The trial court allowed the State to introduce evidence of two prior sales by Wil…
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 Similar Fact Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Joseph Wilbur, appeals the judgment and sentence entered after a jury found him guilty of the sale of cocaine. Wilbur contends that the court erred by allowing the State to present Williams Rule1 evidence concerning two other offenses at trial. We agree that it was improper to admit into evidence Wilbur’s prior drug offenses and reverse and remand for a new trial.
This court has previously discussed the admission of similar fact evidence at trial. We explained:
Similar fact evidence is admissible if relevant to a fact in issue, even though it also points to the commission of a separate crime. Such evidence is inadmissible, however, if its sole relevancy is to establish bad character on the part of the accused. Coler v. State, 418 So.2d 238 (Fla.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1127, 103 S.Ct. 763, 74 L.Ed.2d 978 (1983). A mere general similarity will not render the similar facts legally relevant to show identity. There must be identifiable points of similarity which pervade the compared factual situations. In order for the similar facts to be relevant, the points of similarity must have some special character or be so unusual as to point to the defendant. Peek v. State, 488 So.2d 52 (Fla.1986); Drake v. State, 400 So.2d 1217, 1219 (Fla.1981). The admission of improper collateral crime evidence is “presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity to crime thus demonstrated as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.” Peek, 488 So.2d at 55, quoting Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903, 908 (Fla.1981).
Wilson v. State, 490 So.2d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).
There was nothing unique or of special character in the crime allegedly committed by Wilbur. It was nothing more than a simple sale of cocaine to a confidential informant. The fact that he made two earlier sales to the same confidential informant was not relevant to the case charged and was only admitted to show Wilbur’s propensity to sell cocaine. Therefore, the admission of this evidence for identity was error. See id.
Moreover, we conclude that the court’s error in admitting the Williams Rule evidence was not harmless. See Bricker v. State, 462 So.2d 556, 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (admitting Williams’ Rule evidence not harmless error where proof of guilt against appellant was not clear and convincing). Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED and REMANDED for new trial.
MONACO and TORPY, Jj„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freeman Crosby v. State, 222 So. 3d 629 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…)). “The admission of improper collateral crime evidence is ‘presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity to crime thus demonstrated as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.’ ” Wilbur v. State, 64 So. 3d 756, 757 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (quoting Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)); accord McCall v. State, 941 So. 2d 1280, 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Evidence that suggests a defendant has committed other crimes or bad acts can have a p…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Straight v. State, 397 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1981)
- Drake v. State, 400 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 1981)
- Peek v. State, 488 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1986)
- Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 459 U.S. 1127 (U.S. 1983)
- Coler v. State, 418 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 1982)
- Bricker v. State, 462 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Wilson v. State, 490 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)