Cardona v. State, 5D01-3438.
| Decision Date | 20 December 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D01-3438.,5D01-3438. |
| Citation | 835 So.2d 297 |
| Parties | David CARDONA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Allison Havens, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Richard E. Doran, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., J., concurs specially, with opinion.
I agree this case should be affirmed. But, I also think it is important to state the reasons for affirming.
Cardona was convicted of false imprisonment without a weapon, improper exhibition of a deadly weapon, and exposure of his sexual organs,1 after he attacked Zvosec (the victim in this case), on the Rollins College campus. On appeal, Cardona argues that the testimony of two state witnesses, Calandra and Raymond, were erroneously admitted as Williams Rule evidence.2 In my view, the facts established at trial and the law support the trial court's evidentiary rulings, and reflect the supreme court's interpretation of evidence admitted under section 90.404(2)(a). Robertson v. State, 780 So.2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), rev. granted, 799 So.2d 219 (Fla.2001); Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660 (Fla.1994)(trial court has broad discretion in determining relevance of evidence; such determination will not be disturbed, absent abuse of discretion).
The record discloses that between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m., on April 12, 2001, Zvosec, a Rollins College co-ed, was walking on the sidewalk on the Rollins campus, from the general store to her dorm room. It was the middle of the second semester. She was walking near an area where students and faculty park.
A dark green car, possibly a Honda, slowed down and stopped. When pressed as to the vehicle's age, she first said she thought it was relatively new, but later said she didn't know. She thought the car had four doors. A man in his twenties, Latin (or not Caucasian) with dark hair, was driving the car. His window was all the way down. He asked her directions to the campus center. She thought the question odd but answered it, pointing in the direction of the campus center, while moving closer to the car.
She guessed she was a few inches from him when she observed him with his pants down, or not wearing them, masturbating. He asked her if she liked watching people jerk off. Suddenly, he grabbed her arm, and she fell in towards the vehicle. At one point, he forced her hand onto his penis and tried to get her to masturbate him. She saw a knife on the seat next to him and felt it on her arm at one point. She said she remembered what her parents had told her about never getting into a car with a stranger, and pulled away. She began screaming in the middle of the street, attempting to summon her friends. The man drove around a roundabout. She wondered why he didn't immediately leave. Then he sped up and she had to jump out of the way to avoid being hit.
Subsequently, a detective assigned to surveillance on the Rollins campus, Detective Rosner (Rosner), was informed by dispatch that a car matching the description given by Zvosec had stopped at a daycare center near the campus. Rosner approached the car, which Cardona was driving. After reading Cardona his rights, Cardona's eyes started to tear and he told Rosner Subsequently (and later at trial), Zvosec identified Cardona as her assailant.
At Cardona's trial, Calandra, also a Rollins College co-ed, testified that five months before the crime in this case took place, at midterms, and right before Thanksgiving in 2000, she was walking on the sidewalk on the Rollins College campus. It was between five and six p.m. A man in a dark green car stopped to ask her directions. He was Latin, with dark skin and dark hair. The car was a two-door model, with tinted windows; probably an older model. When asked, she defined "older" as five years. The driver's window was all the way down.
The man first asked Calandra directions to the gym. She thought the question odd because any student would know its whereabouts. But she answered it was "right there," indicating behind her and in the direction his car was facing. He asked her the location of the campus center. She responded it was a little farther down the street. Unlike Zvosec, Calandra did not approach the car. She guessed she was a few feet away. The man then told her he had one more question for her. At that point, she did walk off the sidewalk over towards his car but she never got as close to him as did Zvosec. The man then asked Calandra if she had ever had oral sex with a stranger.
Calandra testified she became afraid, said "no," and headed for her car which was parked nearby. He followed her saying obscene things, like he had heard it was very exciting. He continued to yell obscenities at her and pulled his car into the gym entranceway to block her in. He pulled his car into the space next to hers and said "Look how big my cock is," opening his car door. Calandra glanced up and saw that his pants were off, he was naked from the waist down. He had his hand on his penis; she couldn't tell if he was erect. Fortunately for Calandra, another car was coming and the man exposing himself drove away. Calandra identified the man as Cardona. Section 90.404(2)(a) is a codification of the rule announced in Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959) regarding admission of evidence of other crimes or bad acts. See Kulling v. State, 827 So.2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
. The rule states:
This type of evidence is variously referred to as "Williams rule evidence," "similar fact evidence," or "collateral crimes evidence."
receded from other grounds, Scull v. State, 533 So.2d 1137 (Fla.1988). So long as it is relevant for any purpose of fact, the fact that it is prejudicial does not make it inadmissible. Ashley v. State, 265 So.2d 685, 694 (Fla.1972).
Similar fact evidence is merely a special application of the general rule that all relevant evidence is admissible unless specifically excluded by a rule of evidence. Bryan v. State, 533 So.2d 744, 746 (Fla. 1988). Relevant evidence will not be excluded merely because it relates to facts that point to the commission of a separate crime. Williams v. State, 621 So.2d 413 (Fla.1993). In fact, all evidence that points to a defendant's commission of a crime is prejudicial; the true test is relevancy. Bryan; Ashley. The only limitation to the relevancy rule is that the state should not be permitted to make the evidence of other crimes the feature of the trial, or to introduce the evidence solely for the purpose of showing bad character or propensity. Bryan at 746.
In Chandler, the supreme court again announced principles which govern how this rule should be applied, reiterating its position in Williams that "relevant evidence will not be excluded merely because it relates to similar facts which point to the commission of a separate crime." Chandler at 191. Further, the court noted, Williams holds that evidence of similar facts is admissible for any purpose if relevant to any material issue, other than propensity or bad character, even though the evidence points to the commission of another crime. Id. Similar fact evidence is also admissible when the evidence establishes the circumstances leading to the defendant's arrest. Geske v. State, 770 So.2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
The Chandler court stated that a common thread in admissibility of similar fact evidence is that there be startling similarities in the facts of each crime and that they are unique. But the supreme court has never required that the collateral crime be absolutely identical to the crime charged. Chandler. As the Chandler court noted, citing its opinion in Gore v. State, 599 So.2d 978 (Fla.1992), the few dissimilarities between the two incidents in that case, and in particular the biggest difference,3 seemed to be a result of differences in the opportunities with which the defendant was presented. Chandler at 193. The Chandler court recognized that although the crimes were not exactly the same, that fact alone did not preclude admission of collateral crime evidence and, indeed, if exact identity were the standard, it would erect an almost impossible standard of admissibility. Chandler at 194.
There are two problems a trial judge must resolve before admitting similar fact evidence. First, the trial judge must determine what relevant issue the evidence is being offered to prove, aside from bad character or propensity. Second, the trial judge must determine whether the combination of facts in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ORMOND BEACH ASSOCIATES LTD. v. CITATION MORTG., LTD.
... ... Marine Contractors, Inc. v. Armco, Inc., 452 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); State Dep't. of Natural Resources v. Hudson Pulp & Paper Corp., 363 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Meyer ... ...
-
Malone v. State, 5D02-1544.
...v. State, 511 So.2d 526 (Fla.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1020, 108 S.Ct. 733, 98 L.Ed.2d 681 (1988); Cardona v. State, 835 So.2d 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (Sharp, J., concurring). SHARP, W., PETERSON and ORFINGER, JJ., ...