BOBBY L. PAUL, 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.
Bobby Paul appeals his bench trial conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and grand larceny. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed his conviction, holding that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of Paul's confessions to seventeen unrelated burglaries, as this evidence was irrelevant character evidence that violated the rule excluding propensity evidence.
The court held that the evidence of the defendant's admitted involvement in the seventeen unsolved burglaries was not relevant to the specific crime charged and was inadmissible character evidence that violated the rule excluding propensity evidence. The erroneous admission of this damaging evidence may have deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
[1] Evidence of other crimes is admissible if it casts light on the character of the act under investigation by showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, common scheme, ide…
[2] Evidence of other crimes is inadmissible if its sole relevance is to demonstrate the defendant's character or 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“It is well settled in this state that evidence of other crimes is admissible if it casts light on the character of the act under investigation by showing either motive, intent, absence of mistake, common scheme, identity or a system or general pattern of criminality so that the evidence of such other crimes would have a relevant or material bearing upon some essential aspect of the offense then being tried.”
The court's statement of the rule governing admissibility of evidence of other crimes in Florida, establishing the requirements for relevance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaul was arrested and taken into a police interrogation room where folders containing information on seventeen unsolved burglaries were displayed on 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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
The defendant appeals his conviction by the court, without a jury, and a sentence of seven years in the state prison for the crimes of 1) breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and 2) grand larceny. Three points are presented. The first urges reversible error because of the admission into evidence of defendant’s confession made upon interrogation by police officers after defendant’s arrest that he had been involved in seventeen specific cases of burglary. The second urges denial of a motion to suppress “all written and oral statements made by the Defendant.” The third urges error for the imposition of a general sentence upon the finding of guilt of the two separate crimes.
We dispose of the second point first. No violation of defendant’s constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States appears in this record.
The sole factor to be considered upon the admission of the confession of involvement in other burglaries is whether the evidence was relevant to the charge in this case. The rule has been stated in Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1972):
“It is well settled in this state that evidence of other crimes is admissible if it casts light on the character of the act under investigation by showing either motive, intent, absence of mistake, common scheme, identity or a system or general pattern of criminality so that the evidence of such other crimes would have a relevant or material bearing upon some essential aspect of the offense then being tried.”
**
The record in the present case shows that after the arrest, the defendant was taken into a room where the folders containing information on seventeen unsolved burglaries were laid out on the table. He was asked about his involvement in these cases.1 The officers testified that the defendant admitted that he committed the burglaries and kept saying, “Let me go. I did it. Let me go. Set me free.”
We find that as to the crime for which the defendant was tried, there is no relevance in the testimony of the police officers that the defendant admitted involvement in the unsolved crimes. It is evident defendant is a habitual criminal and that he frequently commits burglaries. There is no doubt that this admission would go far to convince men of ordinary intelligence that the defendant was probably guilty of the crime charged. But, the criminal law departs from the standard of the ordinary in that it requires proof of a particular crime. Where evidence has no relevancy except as to the character and propensity of the defendant to commit the crime charged, it must be excluded. Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). We conclude that the erroneous admission of the damaging evidence may have deprived the defendant of a fair trial, and we will reverse his conviction with directions that he be granted a new trial.
Defendant’s third point urging error in a general sentence upon two separate crimes would appear to be moot at this time. Nevertheless, we point out that, in our opinion, such a sentence is contrary to the rule stated in Darden v. State, 306 So. 2d 581 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).
Reversed and remanded with directions to grant the appellant a new trial.
. This practice is testified to be an aid in police work so that cases may be moved from an open or unsolved category to a closed category.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Swafford v. State, 533 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 1988)…fact, nor was that fact relevant to the case sub judice. The testimony is precisely the kind forbidden by the Williams rule and section 90.404(2). Id. at 461. Moreover, Jackson cited with approval the following statement from [*279] Paul v. State, 340 So. 2d 1249,1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert, denied, 348 So. 2d 953 (Fla.1977): There is no doubt that this admission [to prior unrelated crimes] would go far to convince men of ordinary intelligence that the defendant was probably guilty of the crime charged. B…
-
Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)…A 1975); Long v. State, 310 So. 2d 35 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Haddon v. State, 307 So. 2d 238 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). . The decision suggests, contrary to the Clark limitation on Benson (n. 7 above), that all general sentences are improper. . Paul v. State, 340 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) (dictum). . Dorfman v. State, 333 So. 2d 481 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), essentially adopting the Clark limitation on Benson described in n. 7 above. It is not clear whether the Third District accepts the Fourth District’s position in Cart…
-
Peek v. State, 488 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 1986)…were committed within the same vicinity. The explanation for excluding this type of evidence was set forth in Jackson v. State, 451 So. 2d 458 (Fla.1984), where we quoted with approval the Third District Court of Appeal’s comment in Paul v. State, 340 So. 2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So. 2d 953 (Fla.1977): There is no doubt that this admission [to prior unrelated crimes] would go far to convince men of ordinary intelligence that the defendant was probably guilty of the crime charged.…
Previewing 3 of 15 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)
- Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1972)
- Darden v. State, 306 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)