J. D. DAVIS, 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.
J.D. Davis appeals his conviction for possession of heroin, challenging the admission of evidence regarding a prior heroin sale for which he had been acquitted. The court holds that similar fact evidence is admissible when the defendant was convicted on one charge and acquitted on another related charge in the prior proceeding.
The court held that where a defendant has been convicted on one of two charges tried together despite an acquittal on the other charge, the 'similar fact evidence' from that prior proceeding is admissible at a subsequent trial.
[1] Evidence of a prior sale of heroin is admissible to prove possession of heroin, even if the defendant was acquitted of the prior sale charge.
[2] The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not preclude the admission of "similar fact evidence" of a prior offense when the defendant was convicted of one charge arising f…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We hold that where there has been a conviction of one of two charges tried together though there has been an acquittal on the other charge, the "similar fact evidence" is admissible.”
The court's holding establishing the rule that similar fact evidence may be admitted when the defendant was convicted on one charge and acquitted on another in the prior proceeding.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was charged with two counts: sale and possession of heroin arising from a May 15, 1971 incident, and was acquitted of sale but convicted of poss…
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 Sale Of Heroin cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from the Criminal Court of Record of Orange County, Florida. The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin and also of the sale of heroin.
At the trial, evidence was admitted, over objection, that the appellant sold heroin to a law enforcement officer on May IS, 1971; that appellant was charged on two counts, one sale and one of possession and was acquitted of sale and convicted of possession. The sale and possession of heroin by the appellant in the instant case, which resulted in his conviction of two similar charges, took place a few days after the May IS, 1971 sale.
The question presented is whether “similar fact evidence” of a prior sale can be admitted where appellant has been acquitted of sale of heroin but convicted of possession of heroin.
Florida law has permitted the admission of such evidence even though there was an acquittal. (Blackburn v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 208 So.2d 625.)
The U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals holds to the contrary. Wingate v. Wainwright, 5 Cir. 1972, 464 F.2d 209 states as follows:
H< H1 H* * H< H<
“We do not hold that the Florida evi-dentiary rule which permits evidence of other offenses to be admitted to show intent, knowledge or common scheme or plan violates due process.”
Hi * Hi Hi Hi *
“We hold that under Ashe [Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469] where the state in an otherwise proper prosecution seeks for any purpose to relitigate an issue which was determined in a prior prosecution of the same parties, then the evidence offered for such a relitigation must be excluded from trial and the state must be precluded from asserting that the issue should be determined in any way inconsistent with the prior determination.”
* * * * * *
The Wingate case in effect holds that the admission of evidence of a crime on which acquittal has been rendered, violates the collateral estoppel doctrine.
There is a factual difference between the instant case and that of Wingate. Here the appellant was convicted of possession of heroin in the former case that supplied the evidence of “similar fact” in the instant case.
We hold that where there has been a conviction of one of two charges tried together though there has been an acquittal on the other charge, the “similar fact evidence” is admissible.
Finding no reversible error, the judgment here appealed is affirmed.
OWEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perkins v. State, 332 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…lackburn v. Cross, 510 F. 2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1975), and the dissenting opinions of Judge Pearson in Blackburn v. State, 208 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla.App.3d 1968), and Judge Rawls in Johnson v. State, 285 So. 2d 436 (Fla.App.1st 1973). Cf. Davis v. State, 277 So. 2d 311 (Fla.App.4th 1973). We therefore hold that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting (over the appellant’s objection in the present trial) evidence of a charge upon which appellant had been tried and acquitted. Accordingly, we rever…
-
State v. Perkins, 349 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1977)…ee 86 A.L.R.2d 1136 (1962), and cases collected under § 3. Contra: State v. Little, 87 Ariz. 295, 350 P. 2d 756 (1960); McDowell v. State, 142 Tex.Cr.R. 530, 155 S.W. 2d 377 (1941). . Lane v. State, 324 So. 2d 124 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). Davis v. State, 277 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).…
Authorities Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1970)
- Wingate v. Louie L. Wainwright, 464 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Blackburn v. State, 208 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)