ROBERT EVELIO RODRIQUEZ, 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.
Robert Rodriquez was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm after advising police of a robbery tip and attempting to protect himself during a banking transaction. The court reversed his conviction because the state improperly introduced evidence of a prior similar offense (the Williams Rule violation) and commented on the police's failure to provide lawful protective advice.
The conviction must be reversed and remanded for a new trial because the state violated the Williams Rule by introducing evidence of the October 16, 1970 occurrence, which was irrelevant to proving an essential element of the December 23 offense and only served to show a habit or tendency to carry concealed weapons.
[1] Evidence of a prior similar offense is inadmissible when it serves only to demonstrate a defendant's habit or tendency to commit the crime charged.
[2] The prosecution may not introduce evidence of a prior similar offense to prove a defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged.
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“The State had amply proved that appellant was carrying a concealed weapon, 'however good the reason might have been. The prosecuting attorney then introduced testimony of a similar previous occurrence. This not only is contra to Davis but also violates the Williams Rule.”
Establishes that the state's introduction of prior similar conduct violated the Williams Rule even though the essential element of concealed carry was already proved.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 23, 1970, Rodriquez notified Tampa Police that he had received a tip he would be robbed going in or out of International Bank. The police …
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 Williams Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Robert Evelio Rodriquez was convicted of violating F.S. § 790.01(2), the offense being commonly referred to as carrying a concealed firearm. Prior to December 23, 1970, Rodriquez advised the Tampa Police Department that he had a tip informing him that he would be robbed going in or out of the International Bank to do his daily business. He was informed by the police that they could not protect him and gave him no instructions as to how he could be protected in his banking transactions. The next morning as he entered the bank he took with him a small pistol and proceeded to the bank with it fully disclosed but, on second thought, stuck it in his pocket. Detective Cloud of the Tampa Police Department, having obviously received the information regarding the suspected robbery, met him in the bank and told the appellant he thought he had a pistol in his right front pocket and wanted to pat him down. Appellant suggested they go into the bank president’s office. After they entered and sat down, Detective Cloud grabbed the defendant’s right front pocket and seized the pistol together with the gun clip. Another patrolman, W. A. Williams, testified to the same facts. This all occurred on December 23, 1970.
Following this testimony the State, over objection, then produced testimony from H. B. Maxey of the Tampa Police Department that appellant had committed the same offense on October 16, 1970. However, this time he carried a weapon to his place of business after being informed that a robbery had occurred at his business.
This constitutes the same error the State committed in Davis v. State, 276 So.2d 846 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1973). The State had amply proved that appellant was carrying a concealed weapon, 'however good the reason might have been. The prosecuting attorney then introduced testimony of a similar previous occurrence. This not only is contra to Davis but also violates the Williams Rule. The evidence of the October 16, 1970 occurrence had no relevancy or material bearing on an essential aspect of the offense being tried. The State had proved possession of a concealed weapon by the defendant, and obviously it was attempting to show that this defendant had a habit or a tendency to carry a concealed weapon which, of course, is not relevant to the offense being tried.
While, as noted, appellant may have violated the law in carrying a concealed firearm, and thus was amenable to criminal prosecution therefor, we feel constrained to comment upon the apparent undisputed fact herein that appellant notified the police that he had a tip he was to be robbed. Detective Cloud was apparently at the bank not to protect appellant from robbery but to observe his conduct. There were many things the police could have advised appellant to have done which were lawful. We sympathize with the fact that police cannot offer personal protection to individuals around the clock, but they could have certainly advised the appellant of some action he could have taken, lest the general public come to think that everyone is entitled to assume their own protection by carrying concealed weapons. They are entitled to protection when they know they are about to be robbed or their person harmed.
The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
McNULTY, J., concurs.
HOBSON, J., concurs in conclusion only.