BILLY EVERETT, 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.
Billy Everett appealed his conviction for failing to report a change of residence within forty-eight hours, arguing that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of a prior, unrelated failure to comply with the same registration requirement. The appellate court agreed, finding fundamental error that undermined confidence in the verdict.
The court held that the admission of the collateral crime evidence was fundamental error that undermined confidence in the verdict. Although Everett failed to object at trial, the repeated reference to the prior violation by the prosecutor during closing arguments elevated the error to fundamental error warranting reversal.
[1] The erroneous admission of collateral crime evidence is presumed harmful error.
[2] A defendant must demonstrate that collateral crime evidence was fundamental error when no objection was made at trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 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 commit the crime as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.”
Establishes the presumption that collateral crime evidence is harmful and the rationale for excluding such evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEverett was charged with failing to report within forty-eight hours after changing his residence from Spring Street to Baker Street. At trial, the Sta…
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 Presumption Of Harmful Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Billy Everett, challenges his conviction and sentence for failing to report within forty-eight hours after changing his permanent or temporary residence. Appellant argues, and we agree, that the erroneous admission of collateral crime evidence during his trial created fundamental error.
At trial, the jury heard testimony that Appellant’s registered address for the time period in question was listed as Spring Street. The State’s witnesses testified that Appellant moved from the Spring Street residence to a residence on Baker Street. However, none of the witnesses could provide exact dates for any of these events. Appellant testified that he did not move into the Baker Street residence; he testified that he only stayed there for a few days. During cross-examination, the prosecutor elicited testimony from Appellant that he failed to comply with the forty-eight hour registration requirement when he initially moved to the Spring Street residence. The prosecutor repeatedly mentioned Appellant’s previous failure to comply with the registration requirement during his closing arguments. The prosecutor even urged the jury to consider the previous violation when it evaluated Appellant’s credibility.
“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 commit the crime as evidence of guilt of the crime charged.” Fike v. State, 4 So.3d 734, 739 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (quoting Mims v. State, 872 So.2d 453, 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). Because Appellant failed to object to any of the collateral crime testimony, he must show that the error was not only harmful, but fundamental. Id. Fundamental error is error that undermines the confidence in the trial outcome and goes to the very foundation of the case. Id. In this case, fundamental error occurred because the prosecutor repeatedly mentioned the collateral crime evidence in his closing arguments. The admission of the collateral crime evidence was fundamental error as it undermines confidence in the verdict. We therefore REVERSE Appellant’s conviction and REMAND for a new trial.
PADOVANO, ROWE, and RAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jones v. State, 128 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…1992). In this case, we believe both conditions have been met. Here, the multiple improper references to Jones’s prior convictions and the jury’s question about them establish that Jones was severely prejudiced in his defense. See Everett v. State, 124 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (unobjected to multiple references that the defendant moved and did not comply with registration requirements in a failure to report case was presumptively harmful and constituted fundamental error); Gardner v. State, 54 So. 3d 1…
-
Higgins v. State, 128 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…THOMAS, J. Dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The admission of the collateral-crime evidence here constituted fundamental error. Everett v. State, 124 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). I would reverse for a new trial.…
Authorities Cited
- Lynwood Davis v. State, 4 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Fike v. State, 4 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Wombles v. Gladish, 872 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)