LONNIE AIRFORNIA MARION, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a robbery conviction because evidence of a prior similar robbery was improperly admitted under the Williams test, as the State failed to establish relevance beyond mere propensity.
Evidence of a prior similar offense is inadmissible unless it is relevant to a material fact in issue beyond showing the defendant's bad character or propensity to commit crime.
[1] Evidence of a prior similar offense is admissible only when relevant to a material fact in issue such as identity, motive, pattern, intent, or common scheme or design, an…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 test as to the admissibility of evidence as to prior similar offenses is its relevancy to a material fact in issue except where the sole relevancy is the bad character or propensity of the accused to commit a crime”
Establishing the legal standard from Williams v. State for admitting evidence of prior offenses
Lonnie Marion was charged with robbery committed with an accomplice using a gun during the evening. The State introduced evidence of a prior robbery a…
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 Evidence Of Prior Crimes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The sole’point involved in this appeal is whether evidence tending to show that the accused had committed another crime was properly admitted into evidence within the test prescribed in Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 654. The Williams case establishes the rule that the test as to the admissibility of evidence as to prior similar offenses is its relevancy to a material fact in issue except where the sole relevancy is the bad character or propensity of the accused to commit a crime.
A review of the evidence in the record on appeal reflects the State’s failure to meet the burden of demonstrating that the prior offense was “relevant to a factual issue” and was “not being introduced for the purpose of showing mere propensity”. See Franklin v. State, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 892. The only common denominator between the crime for which defendant was being charged and the prior offense was that both incidents were robberies allegedly committed by the defendant and an accomplice with a gun during the evening. The State failed to demonstrate that the prior criminal act fell into any of the familiar categories such as proof of identity, motive, pattern or intent, or common scheme or design. See Green v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So. 2d 42. Accordingly, the admission of the evidence relating to other criminal activity was error and the judgment of conviction and sentence is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for the purposes of a new trial.
Reversed.
OWEN, C. J„ and CROSS and MAGER. JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drayton v. State, 292 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…iled to demonstrate the requisite similarity in operation and the evidence of the prior similar offenses were being introduced only for the purpose of illustrating mere propensity in violation of the Williams rule. Cf. Marion v. State, Fla.App.1973, 283 So. 2d 53. In conclusion, we deem the following quote in Davis v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 846 at 848 applicable to the instant case. “But these are two separate and distinct crimes. One is not relevant. The evidence of one of the offenses would have…
-
State v. Marion, 287 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 1973)…Certiorari denied. 283 So. 2d 53. CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur. DEKLE, J., dissents.…
-
Clingan v. State, 317 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…r of the defendant and his propensity to commit a homosexual act. Banks v. State, Fla.App.1st 1974, 298 So. 2d 543; Harris v. State, Fla.App.2d 1966, 183 So. 2d 291. See Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 654; Marion v. State, Fla.App.4th 1973, 283 So. 2d 53; Drayton v. State, Fla.App.3d 1974, 292 So. 2d 395. In view of our conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider the other points of law raised on this appeal. [*864] The judgment and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. BOARD…
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, 190 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Peel v. State, 229 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)