Bryant v. State, 2D99-1197.
| Decision Date | 09 May 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D99-1197.,2D99-1197. |
| Citation | 787 So.2d 904 |
| Parties | Joe D. BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Joe D. Bryant seeks reversal of the judgments and sentences after a jury found him guilty of battery, handling or fondling a child under sixteen in a lewd, lascivious or indecent manner, and showing obscene material to a minor. Bryant raises four issues for our review. Three have no merit, but we conclude the trial court erred in the admission of Williams1 Rule evidence, requiring reversal for a new trial.
The fourteen-year-old victim testified that Bryant exposed her to obscene pictures on a computer, touched her inappropriately, and committed sexual battery by digital penetration. This allegedly occurred on the first night of a two-night sleep over with Bryant's daughter at Bryant's home. The State also presented as evidence obscene photographs, recovered from the hard drive of a computer at Bryant's home, that had been generated the night of the sleep over. Although admittedly obscene, the images did not match the description of the pictures the victim described seeing. Also present at Bryant's home on the night in question were Bryant's eleven-year-old son, fourteen-year-old daughter and twenty-two-year-old daughter. They all testified at trial and denied observing any of the conduct leading to the charges.
After the defense rested, the State offered into evidence twenty-four additional photographs that had been recovered from the computer hard drive. The State's computer expert revealed that these additional images were placed on the hard drive over a three-month period of time ending some two weeks to a month before the night of Bryant's alleged criminal activity in this case. The defense objected to the admission of these additional images.
We conclude the admission of these additional computer images was error that requires we remand for a new trial. First, the State presented no direct evidence that the computer images were placed onto the hard drive by Bryant. "Before evidence of a collateral offense can be admitted under the Williams Rule, there must be clear and convincing evidence that the former offense was actually committed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. State
...State was also required to establish the basis for C.B.'s similar fact testimony by clear and convincing proof. See Bryant v. State, 787 So.2d 904, 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).7 These circumstances are not, however, adequate to justify application of collateral estoppel. Two of the prerequisites......
-
Stephenson v. State
...resolving those questions made the abortion issue all the more deleterious to the mother's chance at a fair trial. See Bryant v. State, 787 So.2d 904, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (reversing where State was improperly allowed to offer collateral offense evidence of pornographic images and observi......
-
Henrion v. State, Case No. 2D02-5557 (FL 10/1/2004), Case No. 2D02-5557.
...party is required to prove the defendant's connection with the similar act by clear and convincing evidence. Bryant v. State, 787 So. 2d 904, 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Preciose v. State, 829 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Acevedo v. State, 787 So. 2d 127, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In order for......
-
Henrion v. State, 2D02-5557.
...offering party is required to prove the defendant's connection with the similar act by clear and convincing evidence. Bryant v. State, 787 So.2d 904, 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Preciose v. State, 829 So.2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Acevedo v. State, 787 So.2d 127, 130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In ord......