CASIMIRO GARCIA, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in admitting rebuttal testimony showing the defendant's propensity to sell marijuana, which was irrelevant to the charged offense.
[1] Evidence of prior criminal conduct is inadmissible to prove a defendant's propensity to commit the crime charged.
[2] Testimony is not considered rebuttal evidence if it does not directly contradict or disprove evidence presented by the opposing party.
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of possessing marijuana. He testified he had loaned his car, which was later found abandoned. The State then called a rebuttal…
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
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Casimiro Garcia was found guilty of possessing on March 14,1977 more than five grams of marijuana. On appeal he contends that the court erred in admitting, over timely objection, the testimony of one of the state s witnesses. We agree and, therefore, reverse his conviction.
Appellant took the witness stand in his own behalf. He testified that several days prior to the date on which the contraband was discovered in his automobile he had loaned the vehicle to a friend, that the man he had loaned the automobile to did not return it, that after a few days appellant found it abandoned between Naples and Immoklee, and that he hot wired it and drove it to Naples where his brother had an ignition key made. After the attorney for appellant announced that the defense rested, the state indicated that it would like to call as a rebuttal witness Officer Raymond Bass of the Collier County Sheriff’s Department who had testified in the state’s case in chief. Appellant’s counsel objected to the introduction of testimony proffered by the state pertaining to sale of marijuana in March 1976 by appellant which was wholly independent of and unrelated to the offense at issue. The trial court overruled the objection.
Such testimony cannot be said to be rebuttal testimony and did not rebut appellant’s testimony concerning the custody and control of the automobile in this case. The objectionable testimony showed only his propensity to sell marijuana and, therefore, it was inadmissible under the holding of Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). Furthermore, the state failed to demonstrate .that the evidence was relevant to any factual issue in the case. State v. Davis, 290 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1974); Roche v. State, 326 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Franklin v. State, 229 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); see Duncan v. State, 291 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for a new trial.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nowitzke v. State, 572 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 1990)…ke suffered organic brain damage,4 the state improperly called this neurosurgeon for “rebuttal.” See Donaldson v. State, 369 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979) (where facts were undisputed by defendant, rebuttal testimony was improper); Garcia v. State, 359 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 2d DCA) (reversible error for prosecutor to present rebuttal testimony that did not rebut defendant’s testimony), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1978). This error was then compounded. Although Dr. Padar admitted he was unfamiliar with the…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Ira G. Duncan v. State, 291 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- State v. Cullen Davis, 290 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1974)
- Peel v. State, 229 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Roche v. State, 326 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)