DAVID ALLEN WILLIAMS, 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.
David Allen Williams was convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit first degree murder, not guilty of assault with intent to commit first degree murder, and guilty of second degree murder (rather than first degree murder) in the beating death of Martha Virginia Aultman. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error.
The court held that no reversible error occurred. The testimony regarding the defendant's reputation for truth and veracity was admissible because it concerned reputation in a specific community rather than general reputation. The testimony about prior beatings was admissible and relevant to the fatal beating. The victim's identity was established through police officer testimony. The denial of the motion for bill of particulars was proper because the indictment stated the place and date, and the exact time was not known to the prosecution.
[1] Testimony regarding a defendant's reputation for truth and veracity is admissible when the defendant testifies at trial.
[2] Evidence of prior beatings inflicted by a defendant on a victim is relevant to a charge of murder, especially when connected to the fatal beating.
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 inquiry made of the witness was as to the defendant's reputation for truth and veracity in a certain community. Such testimony may be presented by the state as to a defendant who has testified at his trial.”
Establishes that reputation testimony for truth and veracity is admissible when defendant testifies, distinguishing it from inadmissible general reputation evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was indicted for breaking and entering Carl Goldberg's dwelling with intent to commit first degree murder and assaulting Goldberg; assaulting…
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 Reputation For Truth And Veracity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By indictment the appellant David Allen Williams was charged, in one count, with breaking and entering the dwelling of Carl Goldberg at a stated address in Dade County with intent to commit first degree murder, and with therein having assaulted Goldberg. In a second count Williams was charged with assaulting Goldberg with intent to commit first degree murder, and by a third count was charged with first degree murder by effecting the death of Martha Virginia Aultman, by beating her with his hands and fists. On trial before a jury he was found and adjudged guilty as charged in the first count, not guilty on the second count, and on the third count, guilty of second degree murder, a lesser degree of the crime charged in that count. Motion of the defendant for a new trial was denied, and he appealed. On consideration of the record, briefs and argument, we hold no reversible error has been shown.
The contention of the appellant that the trial court allowed the state to introduce testimony of a witness relating to defendant’s general reputation, is not borne out by the record, which reveals the inquiry made of the witness was as to the defendant’s reputation for truth and veracity in a certain community. Such testimony may be presented by the state as to a defendant who has testified at his trial. Baxter v. State, 294 So. 2d 392, 393 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
Three witnesses, one of whom was a rebuttal witness, testified to having seen the physical results or effects on Virginia Aultman of prior beatings by the defendant. To one of said witnesses, on an occasion when Williams was present, he admitted responsibility for facial injuries Ault-man had. The others were clearly connected to Williams. On one Williams’ actions were observed, and on both such occasions Aultman had admitted or indicated Williams was responsible. When considered in connection with the.beating administered by Williams to the woman when he found her with Goldberg, which proved to be fatal, the relevance of such testimony was clear. It was admissable on authority of Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959).
We find to be without merit the appellant’s contention that the state failed at trial to establish the identity of the deceased. That contention is presented here without having been made at trial. However, identity of the victim of the homicide was established in the evidence. Each of two police officers testified he had seen and identified the victim Aultman at the scene. One testified he had seen her previously and knew who she was, and the other officer who so testified stated he knew the woman personally.
We find to be without merit the contention of the appellant that the court committed error by denying defendant’s motion for bill of particulars. Thereby defendant had sought particulars as to the date, time and place of the alleged offense. The state responds here by pointing out that the rule [Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(n)] calls for statement of particulars to specify “as definitely as possible” the place, date and other material facts that “are known to the prosecuting attorney”. The place and date were stated in the indictment. The exact time did not appear to have been known.
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Myers v. Tobin, 556 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…t Lewis Myers, seeks a writ of prohibition to disqualify respondent judge from presiding over petitioner’s criminal case. We find that petitioner’s motion was legally sufficient to require the respondent to disqualify himself. See Williams v. State, 344 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. dismissed, 351 So. 2d 409, 348 So. 2d 955 (Fla.1977); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.230(d). Because we are confident that the respondent will enter an order of recusal, we, accordingly, withhold formal issuance of our writ of prohibition. Pet…
-
Starr Griffin v. State, 962 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…der. He was sentenced to a term of thirty years in state prison on the breaking and entering conviction and a term of fifty years of state imprisonment on the second degree murder conviction. These two sentences ran consecutively. Williams v. State, 344 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Griffin has since filed multiple petitions in state and federal court, none of which have succeeded on the merits.1 [*1027] In response to the instant petition, we ordered Griffin to show cause why this Court should not prohibit…1 / 2
-
Goldstein v. State, 447 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…tute to this case, we hold that the prior act of aggressive conduct and the accompanying verbal statements were admissible because they were relevant to the issue of intent which is an essential element of premeditated murder. See Williams v. State, 344 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Hutchinson v. State, 102 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). We have carefully reviewed each of the errors asserted on appeal and find that none constitutes reversible error. Therefore, the judgments of conviction and sentences are A…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Baxter v. State, 294 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)