HOWARD BANKS, 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.
Howard Banks was convicted of fondling a male child under 14 years old based on testimony from two child victims. The Florida appellate court reversed his conviction because the state improperly introduced testimony about a collateral offense involving a 14-year-old to demonstrate Banks' bad character and propensity to commit homosexual acts.
The court held that the introduction of the collateral offense testimony was error because it was solely intended to prove bad character and propensity, which is improper character evidence. The conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
[1] Evidence of a collateral offense is inadmissible when its sole purpose is to prove the defendant's bad character and propensity to commit the crime charged.
[2] Testimony of a victim and another witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for fondling a child under the age of fourteen years in a lewd, lascivious, and indecent m…
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“A review of this record leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the singular purpose of injecting this collateral crime into the trial by the state was to prove the bad character of defendant and his propensity to commit a homosexual act.”
Establishes that the sole purpose of introducing the collateral offense testimony was improper character evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBanks was charged with fondling a male child under 14 in a lewd, lascivious, and indecent manner. The state presented testimony from a 10-year-old vic…
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 Propensity Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
RAWLS, Chief Judge.
Once again we have before us a record where the state, in the name of “Williams”, went for the over-kill,1 Appellant Banks was charged and convicted of the crime of fondling a male child under the age of fourteen years in a lewd, lascivious and indecent manner.2 In support of its accusation, the state adduced the testimony of the victim, age 10, and his friend, age 11. The testimony of these two witnesses was more than sufficient to sustain the conviction. But the state was not content for it sought fit, over the vigorous objection of defense counsel, to present testimony of a collateral offense. A young male, fourteen years of age, was called to the stand and he testified in substance as follows: That he and his mother met the defendant (appellant) at a “Magic Market” and he knew defendant for the ensuing three weeks on a friendly basis; that a day or two after meeting defendant the witness, in hopes of seeing defendant, visited the store and invited defendant to the witness’s home around 9:00 p. m.;3 and upon arriving there he led the defendant into his bedroom.4 The witness further testified that nothing happened on that occasion, but that on two other occasions the defendant, without any threats, committed homosexual acts on his person. As stated above, this witness was 14 years of age, that being above the age set out in the statute. The witness’s overall testimony was of enticement on his part of the defendant although he denied that he encouraged or solicited the defendant to commit the homosexual acts. A review of this record leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the singular purpose of injecting this collateral crime into the trial by the state was to prove the bad character of defendant and his propensity to commit a homosexual act.5 The judgment appealed is reversed and remanded for a new trial. ' JOHNSON, J., concurs.
SPECTOR, J., dissents. . Abram v. State, 216 So. 2d 498 (1st Cir.Fla.App.1968). . Florida Statute 800.04. . This witness testified that he knew his parents were not home. .The witness testified, “I just asked him did he want to go back to the bedroom and see my bedroom, and he said yes. So, I went back there and showed him my bedroom.” . Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959).
SPECTOR, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s “underkill” opinion. I think the judgment should be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Cotita v. State, 381 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…as not relevant to prove appellant’s intent, motive, absence of mistake, modus operandi, or any other element of the crime charged. Its only relevance was to show appellant’s propensity to commit the crime, which is clearly improper. Banks v. State, 298 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1 DCA 1974); Harris v. State, 183 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2 DCA 1966); Hooper v. State, 115 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3 DCA 1959). This statement is hardly “language . beyond the holding- of the case,” as suggested by the majority opinion. I think the member…
-
Sias v. State, 416 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…by a man wearing a woman’s bikini pants over his head, blue sock on his right hand, and kitchen towel on his left hand not relevant [*1216] to prove that unadorned defendant accompanied by another man held up cleaner in same county); Banks v. State, 298 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) (sole relation between crime charged and collateral crime was that both involved homosexual acts perpetrated on young boys). Turning to the facts of the present case, while the crimes have in common young boys as victims, isolat…
-
MacKlin v. State, 395 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…. State, 117 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1960)5; accord, Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1972), so as to deprive him of a fair trial. Matthews v. State, 366 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Smith v. State, 344 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Banks v. State, 298 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). We reverse the convictions and order new trials, with the offenses contained in Counts I, VI, VII, and VIII to be tried separately from the offenses contained in Counts XI, XVI, and XVII. Reversed and remanded with directions.…
Previewing 3 of 12 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)
- Abram v. State, 216 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968)