THOMAS KELLER WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Thomas Keller White was convicted of robbery and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. On appeal, White challenged the trial court's denial of his motion for mistrial based on the admission of detective testimony regarding his prior hair color and contact with police, but the court affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence relevant and admissible to corroborate witness identification.
The trial court did not err in admitting the detective's testimony. The evidence was relevant and admissible to corroborate witness testimony identifying White as the robber, and it was distinguishable from inadmissible collateral evidence suggesting prior crimes. The court also found the evidence of White's guilt was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
“Inasmuch as the law permits the introduction of evidence tending to prove that a defendant was guilty of a separate crime when that evidence is relevant to an issue to be resolved at trial, it cannot be said that the law excludes evidence which is relevant but which might imply some prior contact with the law.”
Establishes the legal principle that evidence of prior crimes may be admissible when relevant to a disputed issue at trial.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhite was identified as a robber by witnesses who testified the robber had black hair. White appeared at trial with blonde hair. The state introduced …
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 Collateral Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty of robbery after a jury trial and sentenced to 25 years in the state prison. On this appeal the only substantial point raised urges that the trial court erred in denying a motion for mistrial.
The following is the background of the motion for mistrial. The appellant was identified as the robber, but witnesses to the crime testified that the robber was a man with black hair. The appellant appeared in court with blonde hair. The state introduced the testimony of a detective who stated he had taken a picture of the appellant on a date prior to the date of the alleged crime and that the appellant’s hair had then been black.
*485The appellant urges that a mistrial should have been declared because the testimony of the detective indicated that the appellant had had difficulties with the police before his present difficulty and that police pictures had been made of him. He relies upon Jones v. State, Fla.App.1967, 194 So.2d 24. We think the evidence was clearly relevant and was admissible under the holding of the Supreme Court of Florida in Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 654. ’
Inasmuch as the law permits the introduction of evidence tending to prove that a defendant was guilty of a separate crime when that evidence is relevant to an issue to be resolved at trial, it cannot be said that the law excludes evidence which is relevant but which might imply some prior contact with the law. A careful reading of Jones v. State, above, will demonstrate that we found the prosecutor’s remark that Jones’s picture was mixed with other mug shots to be equivalent to collateral evidence which tended to suggest the commission of an independent crime and therefore inadmissible. The facts of the instant case distinguish it from the Jones case. The detective’s testimony was not collateral evidence. It was evidence which was introduced to corroborate the testimony of other witnesses that the appellant was the robber. Moreover, the term “mug shot” was never used in the presence of the jury.
The appellant raises three other points. The first goes to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment. A review of the record reveals ample testimony to support the jury’s finding as to the commission of the crime and the identity of the appellant as the person who committed the crime. The second and third points are directed to testimony which the appellant urges the court should not have admitted. We hold that the .court did not err in admitting the questioned testimony.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlton W. Christie v. State, 246 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…general question of admissibility of separate-offense evidence the other offense had allegedly occurred prior to the primary offense for which the accused was being tried. Mahone v. State, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 769; White v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So. 2d 484; Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 337; Jenkins v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 276; Bogan v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So. 2d 110; Blackburn v. State, Fla.App.1968, 208 So. 2d 625; Reed v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 364; Flowers v. S…
-
Smith v. State, 307 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Loftin v. State, Fla.1973, 273 So. 2d 70; White v. State, Fla.App. 1969, 218 So. 2d 484; Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; State v. Kelly, Fla. 1973, 287 So. 2d 13.…
-
Daniels v. State, 257 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See Gagnon v. State, 212 So. 2d 337 (Fla.App.1968), and White v. State, 218 So. 2d 484 (Fla.App.1969). CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Jones v. State, 194 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)