TIMOTHY ELLIS DRAYTON, 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.
Timothy Ellis Drayton was convicted of two separate robberies after the trial court admitted cross-admissibility testimony of the other robbery at each trial. The Florida Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the evidence of the other crime was inadmissible propensity evidence under the Williams rule because identity was not genuinely in issue given eyewitness identification and the crimes lacked sufficient similarity in operation.
The court held that the testimony was inadmissible and reversible error. Because both victims positively identified the defendant and identity was not genuinely at issue, the evidence of the other crime was irrelevant. Additionally, the two crimes lacked the requisite similarity in operation and scheme to qualify as admissible under the common scheme exception to the Williams rule against propensity evidence.
[1] Evidence of other crimes is admissible if relevant, except to prove bad character or criminal propensities.
[2] Evidence is relevant if it proves or tends to prove any fact material to the issues in the case.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Evidence revealing other crimes is admissible if relevant except to prove bad character or criminal propensities.”
Establishes the general rule under the Williams rule that other crime evidence is admissible only for relevant non-propensity purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDrayton was charged with the robbery of Alfred Gustinger on September 11, 1972, and James Nicholson on October 10, 1972. At the first trial, Nicholson…
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 Design cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was charged by information #73-1529 filed on March 6, 1973 with the robbery of one Alfred Gus-tinger on the night of September 11, 1972. By a second information (#73-1530) defendant also on March 6, 1973 was charged with the robbery of one James Nicholson on the evening of October 10, 1972. Separate jury trials were held on each charge at the conclusion of which the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to the state penitentiary.
At the first trial for the robbery of Mr. Gustinger, over defense counsel’s objection, the court allowed Mr. Nicholson to testify that the defendant was the person who robbed him on October 10, 1972. Likewise, at the second trial, Mr. Gustinger was permitted to testify as to the appellant robbing him on September 11, 1972. The state proffered the above testimony on the grounds that it related to the issue of identity and common scheme and both juries were so cautioned in their consideration thereof.
On appeal, appellant contends that the trial-court erred in allowing the testimony of other crimes where such testimony became a feature of the defendant’s respective trials, thus denying defendant his right to a fair trial. We find merit in this contention.
Evidence revealing other crimes is admissible if relevant except to prove bad character or criminal propensities. Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 654; State v. Norris, Fla.1964, 168 So. 2d 541. Relevant evidence is evidence which proves or tends to prove any fact material to the issues in the case before the court. 13 Fla.Jur. Evidence § 113 (1957) and cases cited therein. In criminal cases the following may be at issue: identity, common scheme or design, guilty knowledge, intent, motive, or pattern, absence of mistake, alibi, entrapment, etc., and evidence is admissible if it is relevant to prove the above issues. See Marion v. State, Fla.App.1974, 287 So. 2d 419.
Turning to the case sub judice, the state contends that the testimony tending to show the accused had committed another crime was relevant to the issue of identity. However, the record on both cases clearly demonstrates that both victims positively identified the accused as the person who robbed them and thus the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to convict the appellant of the crimes charged. We, therefore, can only conclude that the testimony of a similar crime committed by the defendant was irrelevant and inadmissible as identity was not at issue there being eyewitness testimony clearly identifying the accused. Further, if 'identity is in issue the mere fact that a defendant was identified as being involved in another crime does not render such collateral evidence admissible without some similarity in the operation and scheme of both crimes. See Marion, supra at 422 and cases cited therein.
In the case at bar, the only common denominator between the two crimes with which defendant was charged was that both incidents allegedly were committed during the hours of darkness by the accused and an accomplice with a gun. Thus, we find that the state failed 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 no relevancy or material bearing on an essential aspect of the other as required by Williams. One does not go to prove intent, common scheme, identity and certainly no general pattern as required by Williams. These are two separate and distinct crimes. The State went in for the overkill and in doing so committed reversible error.”
For the reasons cited hereinabove, the judgments of conviction and sentences are reversed and the causes remanded for new trials.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
State v. Casper, 417 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…crime. Story v. State, 355 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Moreover, evidence of pri- or unlawful acts, similar to the one with which the defendant is charged, is ordinarily admissible to rebut a defense of entrapment. See, e.g., Drayton v. State, 292 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974), cert. denied 300 So. 2d 900 (Fla.1974); Marion v. State, 287 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 294 So. 2d 91 (Fla.1974). Upon this record, we are unable to find any evidence which would tend to show predisposition so…
-
Beasley v. State, 305 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…e case at issue, but which does manage to impress upon the minds of the jurors that the defendant has a propensity to commit crimes. E. g., Davis v. State, Fla.App.1973, 276 So. 2d 846, aff’d, Fla.1974, 290 So. 2d 30; Drayton v. State, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 395; Marion v. State, Fla.App.1974, 287 So. 2d 419; Lawson v. State, Fla.App.1974, 304 So. 2d 522 (1974). It is also necessary for us to comment upon the appellant’s second point on appeal. Appellant contends that the state never proved either that he…
-
Lebowitz v. State, 313 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)…of which involved his relationship with the witness Foley. Appellant contends that the prosecutor was overzealous; acted in violation of the so-called Williams rule [See, Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So. 2d 654; Drayton v. State, Fla.App.1974, 292 So. 2d 395]; and therefore prejudiced his right to a fair and impartial trial. The Williams Rule, as this court stated in Drayton is an evidentiary rule which requires that where the state introduces evidence of other crimes, they must be relevant to a matter…
Previewing 3 of 18 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)
- Ethorn Buie v. L. D. Johnson & Sons, Inc., 168 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1964)
- Marion v. State, 287 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Cullen Davis v. State, 276 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Marion v. State, 283 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)