Andrews v. State
| Decision Date | 02 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. F-392,F-392 |
| Parties | Herbert D. ANDREWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
T. Edward Austin, Jr., Public Defender, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James G. Mahorner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was tried by jury, found guilty and convicted of a crime against nature. His points on appeal are: (1) That the jury was prejudiced by the trial judge's interrogation of the witnesses. (2) That it was error to permit the state to present testimony to effect that subsequent to commission of the crime with which defendant was charged he committed a similar offense on the person of the witness who testified thereto. (3) That it was error to permit the state over objection to elicit from the defendant on cross-examination testimony that defendant had been dishonorably discharged from military service because of homosexual acts.
We find no merit to the grounds for reversal asserted by the first point. The trial judge's interrogation of witnesses was of such nature as to clarify the issues and was conducted within the bounds of his judicial authority. See Clark v. State, 122 Fla. 310, 165 So. 44 (1935), and Williams v. State, 143 So.2d 484 (Fla.1962).
Appellant's second point is likewise without merit. The general rule in this jurisdiction requires exclusion of collateral evidence that tends to suggest the commission of an independent crime. It has been subordinated, however, to numerous exceptions which permit the use of evidence that tends to prove criminal intent, guilty knowledge, purpose, plan or design, or to show that the act charged was not the result of accident, mistake or inadvertence.
The effect of these broad exceptions has been to effectuate a rule of admissibility, subject only to specific rules excluding such evidence in certain areas that are not germane to the immediate discussion. See Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1962), in which the court stressed the importance of relevancy of the similar fact evidence as regards the factual issue being tried. In that case the defendant was on trial for rape. Evidence was admitted showing that the defendant, some six weeks prior to the rape in question, had attempted to assault another female under similar circumstances. The Florida Supreme Court held such evidence was properly admitted to establish a plan, scheme or design.
In Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So.2d 201 (1948), the prosecution was allowed to elicit the testimony of five women other than the vitim, showing that on three occasions prior and two occasions subsequent to the date of the alleged offense, the defendant approached the other women in a manner similar to his approach to the prosecutrix. In Talley the Florida Supreme Court said:
(Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant case a witness for the state testified, over objection of the defendant, that defendant had committed homosexual acts on his person a couple of months after the date of the offense for which defendant was on trial. The offense committed on this witness was similar in nature to that committed on the person named in the charge. The testimony concerning the subsequent offense is to the effect that it was committed against a person in an age group comparable to that of the victim named in the charge, at the same place, and under circumstances almost identical to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anthony v. State, 70--457
...entrapment, Ybor v. United States, 5 Cir.1929, 31 F.2d 42; or to disprove a defense of accident, mistake or inadvertence, Andrews v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 505; Talley v. State, supra. Evidence tending to prove the various foregoing elements was held to render admissible as Exceptio......
-
Wadsworth v. State, 596
...Harris v. State, Fla.App.1966, 183 So.2d 291. Some, too, have found the question worthy of particular discussion. See Andrews v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 505, and Green v. State, Fla.App.1966, 190 So.2d 42. However, the principles are stabilized and followed, and admissibility continu......
-
Cotita v. State, II-224
...of the deed as to motive, intent and absence of mistake, for which it was relevant and admissible . . . ." In Andrews v. State, 172 So.2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), evidence that defendant had committed similar illicit sex acts against one other than the victim of the offense charged was held......
-
Green v. State, 6828
...suggest, or tend to suggest, commission of an independent crime, goes out. Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 903; Andrews v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 505. In 1959 the Supreme Court, in Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654, in a well-publicized opinion by Chief Justice Tho......