DONALD PAUL BELL, 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.
Donald Paul Bell appeals his conviction for possession with intent to sell marijuana. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that evidence of a separate search incident discovered on the same day was admissible to show absence of mistake and a pattern of marijuana possession.
The court held that evidence of the Polk County search was admissible because it was relevant to material facts in issue. The evidence showed absence of mistake and a general pattern concerning Bell's possession of marijuana, making it relevant to the charges despite relating to what could be characterized as a separate offense.
“evidence of any facts relevant to a material fact in issue, except where the sole relevancy is character or propensity of the accused, is admissible unless precluded by some specific exception or rule of exclusion”
Establishes the foundational rule for admissibility of evidence relating to separate crimes; allows such evidence when it shows more than mere character or propensity
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 30, 1963, an undercover law enforcement agent met Bell and another person in Orlando pursuant to a prearranged plan to purchase marijuana…
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 Possession Of Narcotics cases and more on FLexlaw
The Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a judgment and conviction on a Two Count Information charging him with, (One) unlawfully and feloniously possessing and having under his control a narcotic drug, to wit: Cannabis, commonly known as Marijuana, and (Two) unlawfully and feloniously selling this drug. Defendant poses five points in his brief upon which he relies for reversal. His argument before this Court was confined almost entirely to his third point, and we agree that it is the one which requires consideration. It is necessary to relate here only a brief portion of the evidence which bears directly thereon.
During the morning hours of September 30, 1963, an agent of law enforcement officers, in accordance with a prearranged plan, met the defendant and another in Orlando to purchase from them a quantity of Marijuana. After some discussion, and driving around with the defendant, and the other party, in the latter’s car, the agent paid $450.00 and received Marijuana in exchange. The agent left the car, and the defendant and his companion were then arrested.
That afternoon, three law enforcement officers, together'with the defendant, trav-elléd to Polk County, obtained a search warrant, and searched defendant’s home, wherein a considerable amount of Marijuana was found. Testimony of this trip to Polk County, and of the events which transpired there, was admitted into evidence over the objection of the defendant, who urges by his third point on appeal that its admission constitutes reversible error, since it relates solely to a separate and distinct offense.
The rule relating to admissibility of this type of evidence is discussed by the Supreme Court of Florida in the case of James A. Williams v. State of Florida, 143 So.2d 484, wherein it was stated that:
“ * * * evidence of any facts relevant to a material fact in issue, except *133where the sole relevancy is character or propensity of the accused, is admissible unless precluded by some specific exception or rule of exclusion. Relevant evidence will not be excluded merely because it relates to similar facts which point to the commission of a separate crime. Thus, for example, this court held that evidence pointing to the commission of another crime is admissible if it casts light upon the character of the crime under investigation by showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, common scheme, identity or a system or general pattern of criminality so that the evidence of the prior or subsequent offense would have a relevant or a material bearing on some essential aspect of the offense being tried.”
It is our holding that the evidence in question here, concerning the events in Polk County, are admissible under the foregoing rule. Certainly, it cannot be denied that it shows absence of mistake and a general pattern concerning the possession of Marijuana by the defendant. This evidence being admissible, the evidence adduced at the trial is ample to sustain the verdict, disposing of defendant’s first point.
With reference to defendant’s point two, suffice it to say that we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial Court.
In points four and five defendant complains of the giving by the Court of two certain charges to the jury. We' fail to find anywhere in the record where the defendant-registered an objection. In the case of Ted Williams v. State of Florida, Fla.App., 109 So.2d 379, we held that under such circumstances, the question cannot be raised on appeal. See § 918.10(4), Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
The judgment of the lower Court is affirmed.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and ANDREWS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Green v. State, 190 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)…een, held admissible, such as in Mackiewicz v. State, Fla.1959, 114 So. 2d 684; Johnson v. State, Fla.1961, 130 So. 2d 599; Reddish v. State, Fla.1964, 167 So. 2d 858; San Fratello v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 327; Bell v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 131; like disposition would have undoubtedly been reached prior to Williams. And by the same token, where collateral crime or “similar fact” evidence has been held inadmissible, such as in Norris v. State, Fla. App.1963, 158 So. 2d 803; State v. Norris,…
-
Quintana v. State, 367 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…957). The third and fourth points claim error upon the jury instruction. The record shows that no objection was made at the trial to this instruction. We, therefore, find no error. See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.390(d), and Bell v. State, 178 So. 2d 131 (Fla.2d DCA 1965). Affirmed.…
-
Norris v. State, 249 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…e, Fla.App.1968, 215 So. 2d 58, cert. den., 396 U.S. 912, 90 S.Ct. 228, 24 L.Ed.2d 188; 4 B Fla.Dig., Criminal Law 1038(3); Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 247; Hamilton v. State, Fla.App.1963, 152 So. 2d 793; Bell v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So. 2d 131; Febre v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 853, 30 So. 2d 367; and Johnson v. State, First District Court of Appeal, 242 So. 2d 876, opinion filed January 19, 1971. We are, however, of the opinion that the sentence imposed is not compatible with the jury ver…
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
- Williams v. State, 143 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1962)
- Williams v. State, 109 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)