BRUCE EDWARD MCCRAY, JR., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed convictions for aggravated battery, kidnapping, and sexual battery due to admission of prejudicial collateral crime evidence and an irrelevant cell phone photograph, though it affirmed denial of acquittal motions.
Collateral crime evidence that overwhelms evidence of charged crimes constitutes impermissible character evidence requiring reversal, and a cell phone photograph lacking foundation is irrelevant and inadmissible.
[1] Collateral crime evidence that overwhelms the evidence of charged crimes constitutes impermissible character evidence requiring reversal even if individually admissible.
[2] A photograph of property lacking evidence connecting the defendant to taking it from the victim or witnesses is irrelevant and inadmissible.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 collateral crime evidence so overwhelmed the evidence of the charged crimes that it became an impermissible attack on appellant's character or propensity to commit crimes”
Court's explanation for why admission of collateral crime evidence was reversible error
Appellant was convicted of aggravated battery, kidnapping with a weapon, and two counts of sexual battery. The trial court admitted evidence of collat…
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 Kidnapping With A Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
In this direct appeal from his convictions for aggravated battery, kidnapping with a weapon, and two counts of sexual battery, appellant claims the trial court (1) abused its discretion in admitting collateral crime evidence; (2) abused its discretion in admitting a photograph depicting a cell phone inside appellant’s car; (3) abused its discretion in permitting the prosecutor to cross-examine appellant about his motives for testifying at trial; and (4) erred in denying appellant’s motions for judgment of acquittal. We affirm appellant’s last two claims without discussion. However, we agree the collateral crime evidence became a feature of the trial because the collateral crime evidence so overwhelmed the evidence of the charged crimes that it became an impermissible attack on appellant’s character or propensity to commit crimes. See Bush v. State, 690 So.2d 670, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). We also agree the photograph of the cell phone was irrelevant because there was no evidence that appellant took the cell phone from the victim or either of the collateral crime witnesses. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
*1247AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED for a new trial.
WETHERELL, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.