CHARLIE HINES, III, 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.
Charlie Hines III was convicted of rape by jury verdict and appealed, arguing that testimony from a deaf-mute witness about an alleged prior rape should have been excluded as unduly prejudicial. The Florida appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the prior-crime evidence was properly admitted under the Williams Rule as relevant to show identity through modus operandi, and that the evidence did not become such a prominent feature of the trial as to inflame the jury.
The trial judge properly admitted the prior-crime evidence under the Williams Rule because it was relevant to establish the appellant's identity through common scheme or plan, and the evidence was not so prejudicial as to become a dominant feature of the trial rather than incidental evidence.
[1] Relevant evidence is not inadmissible merely because it points to the commission of another or separate crime.
[2] Evidence of a prior crime is admissible to show the identity of the defendant through a common scheme or plan.
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“Under the rule of evidence commonly known in Florida as the Williams Rule the test of admissibility of evidence is the relevancy of the evidence to some issue of the case being tried. Such relevant evidence will not be excluded merely because it points to the commission of another or separate crime.”
Establishes the standard for admitting evidence of prior crimes under the Williams Rule.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 18, 1968, two women were abducted at gunpoint from outside their apartment by two men, driven to a secluded location, raped, and released …
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 Common Scheme Or Plan cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Charlie Hines, III, was tried and convicted by a jury of the crime of *435rape in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County. The testimony showed that on November 18, 1968, two women were abducted at gunpoint from outside their apartment by two men. They drove the women to a secluded spot and raped them, after which they released the women in the vicinity of their apartment. Robert Lee Moore, the other abductor, testified at Hines’ trial that he Moore, and Hines committed the crime. The state used a deaf mute as a witness and she testified through an interpreter that Charlie Hines had abducted and raped her on the previous night.
Appellant raises seven points on his appeal and we have considered them all. We find only the fifth point requiring comment. In this appeal Hines contends that the trial judge erred in allowing the deaf and dumb girl to testify before the jury about her alleged rape and maintains that this evidence became the feature of the trial rather than an incident and that it inflamed the jury.
Under the rule of evidence commonly known in Florida as the Williams Rule the test of admissibility of evidence is the relevancy of the evidence to some issue of the case being tried. Such relevant evidence will not be excluded merely because it points to the commission of another or separate crime. Williams v. State, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 654.
The record in this case reflects that the trial judge listened to a proffer of the deaf girl’s testimony out of the presence of the jury. He then listened to argument of counsel for and against the admissibility of the evidence. The judge ruled that it was admissible under the Williams Rule.
The girl’s statement was relevánt to show the identity of appellant in a common scheme or plan. Her testimony showed that the gun and car he used and the pattern of abduction were similar to the gun and car and pattern of abduction of the case being tried and we believe that evidence was properly admitted.
We come now to the question of whether or not the testimony of the deaf mute girl was so prejudicial that it became a feature instead of an incident to the trial. Appellant relies on Green v. State, Fla.App.1969, 228 So.2d 397, cert. den. Fla. 1970, 237 So.2d 540. There, this court ruled that Green’s conviction should be reversed because a prior crime of manslaughter became the feature of the trial for assault with intent to murder. The instant case is clearly distinguishable from the Greett case on this point. The Green case devoted itself almost entirely to the prior offense. In this case before this court only five pages of the testimony out of several hundred pages were related to the prior offense. We think the testimony of the deaf mute girl did not become a feature of the trial rather it was incidental to the trial. We further believe that the testimony given by the deaf mute girl was not in and of itself inflammatory.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hodges v. State, 403 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…tate, 277 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1973); Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959); Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So. 2d 201 (1948); Sweet v. State, 313 So. 2d 130 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Fivecoat v. State, 244 So. 2d 188 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); Hines v. State, 243 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Mims v. State, 241 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970); Blackburn v. State, 208 So. 2d 625 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Coney v. State, 193 So. 2d 57 (Fla.3d DCA 1966). See generally Annot., 2 A.L.R. 4th 330, § 5 (1980) (“Admissibility, in Rape…
-
Minnis v. State, 505 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…have contributed to the conviction based on this record. See Fields v. State, 257 So. 2d 241, 242 (Fla.1971); Dornan v. State, 306 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1011, 95 S.Ct. 2636, 45 L.Ed.2d 675 (1975); Hines v. State, 243 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971). Second, the prosecuting attorney did not, as urged, comment on the defendant’s refusal to testify in this case. He commented on the defendant’s oral statement to the arresting police officer, noting that the defendant did…
-
Whiteman v. State, 343 So. 2d 1340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…assuming arguendo, the Williams II court’s apparent concern with the death penalty did not dilute its warnings against disproportionate treatment of the collateral crime, we find [*1343] no such disproportionate emphasis herein. See Hines v. State, 243 So. 2d 434 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); Keel v. State, 243 So. 2d 630 (Fla.4th DCA 1971). We also find no merit in appellant’s contention that a “continuing course of conduct” was the end sought to be proved by the state in violation of the holding in Duncan. Appellant…
Previewing 3 of 7 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, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Green v. State, 228 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Rice v. State, 228 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Reliance Ins. Co. v. Dade Cnty., 237 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1970)
- Robinson v. Waldrep Dairy, Inc., 237 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1970)