WILLIAM SHAPIRO, 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.
William Shapiro appeals his conviction for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The Florida appellate court affirmed his conviction and concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and 15 years, rejecting arguments that evidence of other crimes was inadmissible and that prosecutorial comments warranted a mistrial.
The court held that (1) testimony regarding Shapiro's participation in the sale of the stolen boat was admissible because it was relevant to show his knowledge of the boat's existence and to impeach his credibility, and also relevant to the issues of the boat's proposed use, his involvement in the murder and conspiracy, and his relationship with other participants; and (2) the prosecutorial comments were not improper, including the prosecutor's pointing out that the defense failed to call a witness who could have impeached the state's key witness.
[1] Evidence of other crimes or criminal activities is admissible if relevant for a purpose other than showing bad character or propensity.
[2] Testimony regarding a defendant's prior involvement in a transaction with the victim is admissible to show the defendant's knowledge of the victim's property and to impea…
Previewing 2 of 5 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 of other crimes or criminal activities is admissible if found to be relevant for any purpose except that of showing bad character or propensity.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for admissibility of evidence of prior crimes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShapiro was indicted and tried for first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder in the death of Burt DeWitt. Evidence showed Shapiro's particip…
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 Conspiracy To Commit Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant, William Shapiro, was indicted and tried by jury for first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder. He was convicted on both counts; and sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count and 15 years on the conspiracy count, both sentences to run concurrently.
For his first point on appeal defendant urges as reversible error the introduction of testimony concerning his alleged prior criminal activities in the participation of the sale of a stolen boat to the victim, Burt DeWitt.
Evidence of other crimes or criminal activities is admissible if found to be relevant for any purpose except that of showing bad character or propensity. Baker v. State, 241 So. 2d 683 (Fla.1970); Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1972); Tafero v. State, 223 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969). Thus, the issue presented for our determination is whether the testimony with regard to the defendant’s participation in the sale of the stolen boat to the victim was relevant for any material purpose. The record discloses that on the eve of Mr. DeWitt’s murder, his wife, concerned about her husband’s whereabouts because he failed to return home, testified that she telephoned the defendant and questioned him as to who sold the boat to her husband. Defendant responded that he did not know Mr. DeWitt owned a boat. This response surprised Mrs. DeWitt because she previously had heard the defendant discussing her husband’s boat. The testimony as to defendant’s participation in the sale of the boat was relevant to show that he had knowledge of the boat’s existence in light of his denial of that fact. Thus, this testimony went to the issue of the defendant’s credibility. In addition, to the knowledge of its existence, the testimony also went to the issues of its proposed use to dispose of the victim’s body,1 to prove his involvement in the murder, conspiracy and his relationship with the other two participants in the crime. We, therefore, conclude that this point lacks merit.
Defendant secondly argues that the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial on the grounds that the cumulative effect of the prosecutorial comments was so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial. We cannot agree.
One of the remarks complained of was made by the prosecutor in his closing argument. Defense counsel on cross-examination of the State’s key witness, Larry Murren, attempted to impeach his testimony by questioning him about a prior inconsistent statement he had allegedly given before James Harris, a court reporter, while in the state attorney’s office. Murren denied making such a statement and the prosecutor in closing argument pointed out to the jury that Harris was never called as a witness and, therefore, Murren’s testimony on behalf of the prosecution remained un-impeached. The failure to call James Harris as a witness who would be helpful to the defense was properly a subject of comment by the prosecutor. Cf. Jenkins v. State, 317 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975); Allen v. State, 320 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). In addition, we find the other prosecutorial remarks presented in this point on appeal were not improper in light of the context in which they were made.
After having reviewed defendant’s remaining points on appeal, we have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear and, therefore, we affirm the judgment of conviction and sentences.
Affirmed.
. To place DeWitt’s body in the boat, sail it out to sea and sink it.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bart Jacobs v. State, 389 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…1977), cert. denied, 358 So. 2d 129 (Fla.1978), or in its approval of the prosecutor’s reference in final argument to Jacobs’ failure to call a supposedly favorable witness at the trial. Buckrem v. State, 355 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1978); Shapiro v. State, 345 So. 2d 361 (Fla.3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1977); Jenkins v. State, 317 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Affirmed. . Sentence on the possession charge was suspended. . See also, State v. Steinbrecher, 389 So. 2d 1045 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); St…
-
Evans v. State, 693 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…the evidence was properly admitted to establish the defendant's knowledge of chemistry and poison to show that he had the requisite knowledge to commit the crime.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1077, 114 S.Ct. 892, 127 L.Ed.2d 85 (1994); Shapiro v. State, 345 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA) (In murder prosecution, victim’s widow testified that she called the defendant on the eve of her husband’s murder because she was concerned about the latter’s whereabouts. She questioned the defendant as to who sold the boat to her hus…
-
Dixon v. State, 430 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Young v. State, 280 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973) with Jacobs v. State, 389 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), pet. for review denied, 397 So. 2d 778 (Fla.1981); Weeks v. State, 363 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), Shapiro v. State, 345 So. 2d 361 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1977); Allen v. State, 320 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), dismissed, 330 So. 2d 725 (Fla.1976) (the state may comment on the failure of the defense to call a witness whom the defendant claimed was fa…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1972)
- Jenkins v. State, 317 So. 2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Tafero v. State, 223 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Baker v. State, 241 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1970)
- Allen v. State, 320 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)