Boyett v. State
| Decision Date | 28 March 1928 |
| Citation | 95 Fla. 597,116 So. 476 |
| Parties | BOYETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Error to Circuit Court, Okaloosa County; A. G. Campbell, Judge.
Bud Boyett was convicted of an offense, and he brings error.
Reversed.
Syllabus by the Court
Generally evidence of committing crime independent of that for which accused is tried, even though of same sort, is inadmissible. The general rule is that, on a prosecution for a particular crime, evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that the accused has committed another crime wholly independent of and unconnected with that for which he is on trial, even though it is a crime of the same sort, is irrelevant and inadmissible.
Evidence that accused has committed crime other than one in question even of similar nature, should not be admitted, unless it comes within one of recognized exceptions; in prosecution for breaking and entering, admitting evidence of another similar crime held error, regardless of admonition. While there are several well-recognized exceptions to the general rule above mentioned, the general rule should be strictly enforced and should not be departed from in any case unless the particular case comes within one of the recognized exceptions and clearly justifies such a departure.
Purl G. Adams, of Crestview, for plaintiff in error.
Fred H Davis, Atty. Gen., and H. E. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In this case the plaintiff in error was indicted jointly with one Allen Eiland for breaking and entering a store building. The codefendant, Eiland, pleaded guilty, and upon the trial the state was permitted, over the plaintiff in error's objection, to prove by Eiland that he and plaintiff in error had committed several other burglaries during a period of several months preceding the crime for which plaintiff in error was being tried. One of these offenses, the witness said, had been committed in this same store, and that a certain hole in a partition between this store and an adjoining office had been made by the plaintiff in error at that time, and a board had subsequently been nailed over it; that it was through this same hole that the witness entered, after removing the board, at the time the offense being tried was committed. This connection, though slight, between these two offenses, probably rendered the testimony as to this particular prior offense admissible. It tended to show a knowledge on the part of both defendants, including the one on trial, of an easy means of access from the office into the store. But as to the other offenses testified to by this witness as having been committed by the plaintiff in error and himself, no connection whatever is shown with the particular offense here involved.
The general rule is that, on a prosecution for a particular crime, evidence which in any manner shows or tends to show that the accused has committed another crime wholly independent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Green v. State, 6828
...are similar or of like nature. Denton v. State, 1913, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914; Suarez v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519; Boyett v. State, 1928, 95 Fla. 597, 116 So. 476; Varnum v. State, 1939, 137 Fla. 438, 188 So. 346; Padgett v. State, Fla.1951, 53 So.2d 106; Fastow v. State, Fla.1951, 54 ......
-
Vazquez v. State
...a defendant that the presumption of innocence is thereafter destroyed and a fair trial rendered impossible. See e. g., Boyett v. State, 95 Fla. 597, 116 So. 476 (1928). In the instant case, powerful documentary evidence was introduced in evidence at trial establishing that the defendant had......
-
Wilson v. State
...facts form the basis for a prosecution for perjury. See Herndon v. State, supra [72 Fla. 108, 72 So. 833].' The case of Boyett v. State, 95 Fla. 597, 116 So. 476, opinion by Mr. Justice Brown, involved the same of law as the case at bar. Plaintiff in error and Allen Eiland were jointly indi......
-
Coston v. State
... ... irrelevant and inadmissible. See Varnum v. State, ... Fla., 188 So. 346, opinion filed April 28, 1939, not yet ... reported [in State Report]; Hartman v. State, 121 ... Fla. 627, 164 So. 354; Gunnels v. State, 96 Fla ... 659, 118 So. 919; Boyett v. State, 95 Fla. 597, 116 ... So. 476; Gafford v. State, 79 Fla. 581, 84 So. 602; ... Denton v. State, 66 Fla. 87, 62 So. 914; Suarez ... v. State, 95 Fla. 42, 115 So. 519; Langford v ... State, 33 Fla. 233, 14 So. 815; Roberson v ... State, 40 Fla. 509, 24 So. 474; Nickels v ... State, ... ...