Harris v. State

• Citation: 183 So.2d 291
• Decision Date: 23 February 1966
• Docket Number: No. 5867,5867
• Parties: Thomas C. HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

Page 291

183 So.2d 291

Thomas C. HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5867.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 23, 1966.

Pat Whitaker, Jr., Tampa, and R. Philip Haddock, Lakeland, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert G. Stokes, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, makes timely appeal from judgment and sentence entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of a crime against nature. Defendant was sentenced to five years in prison.

The complaining witness, one Raymond C. Dudley, testified that he went to defendant's home; found him shaking, crying and threatening to commit suicide; and was then 'attacked' by defendant.

After this, according to the testimony, a Reverend Rich came to defendant's home. Dudley testified that in his presence the defendant told Reverend Rich that he was a homosexual and had slept with twenty members of Rich's church. Defendant objected to the admissibility of this later testimony on the ground that it constituted a direct attack upon defendant's character which had never been placed in issue and was an attempt to prove other offenses unconnected with the crime charged. The defendant contended the cumulative effect of this testimony subjected the defendant to be tried for being a homosexual, not itself a crime, and committing many homosexual acts, rather than being tried for the crime charged in the Information, i. e., the abominable and detestable crime against nature with, on, and upon Raymond C. Dudley on January 2, 1964.

Reverend Rich was then called upon to testify. He stated that when he arrived at defendant's home defendant asked Dudley if he should be honest with the pastor. Reverend Rich testified that defendant said, 'I want you to know that I am a homosexual' and also that defendant told him he had had relations with many prominent men . Defendant objected to this testimony on much the same grounds as set out above and again his objections were overruled.

This record is completely devoid of any evidence which would constitute a confession or admission of the crime with which the defendant was charged.

The testimony elicited by the State from Dudley and Reverend Rich, which is outlined above, comes under the law of 'similar fact evidence.' In the case of Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654, the law governing the admissibility of this type evidence is clearly set forth by Justice Thornal in an erudite opinion analyzing both the history and case law relating to this subject. Subsequent cases have applied and further clarified the 'relevancy' test laid down in Williams, supra. See Griffin v. State, Fla.App.1960, 124 So .2d 38; Horner v. State, Fla.App.1963, 149 So.2d 863; State v. Norris, Fla.1964, 168 So.2d 541; and Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 903.

The Williams case, supra, held the test regarding the admissibility of similar fact evidence which tends to reveal the commission of a collateral crime is 'relevancy.'

'Our view of the proper rule simply is that relevant evidence will not be excluded merely because it relates to similar facts which point to the commission of a separate crime. The test of admissibility is relevancy. The test of inadmissibility is a lack of relevancy.' Williams v. State, supra, 110 So.2d pp. 659-660.

We emphasize here as was done by Justice Thornal in Williams v. State, supra, that the question of the relevancy of this type of evidence must be scrutinized with utmost caution prior to determining it to be admissible.

Similar fact evidence is relevant and admissible when it directly bears upon the character of the act in question by showing motive, intent, absence of mistake, common scheme, identity, or a system of a general pattern of criminality. If its sole relevancy is to show bad character or propensity of the accused, it will be excluded. See Williams v. State, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 484; Norris v. State, Fla.App.1963, 158 So.2d 803; and Talley v. State, 1948, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So.2d 201.

In applying the rule of relevancy to the similar fact evidence in this case we conclude that the evidence in the case at bar is not relevant to any issue of material fact and its sole...