Kroll v. State
| Decision Date | 20 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 1D16–2347 |
| Citation | 221 So.3d 1291 (Mem) |
| Parties | Tommy Allen KROLL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Kaitlin Weiss and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant challenges his convictions for burglary of an occupied dwelling and grand theft. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in admitting Williams Rule evidence that he committed a burglary of a different residence because that evidence became a feature of the trial. See Cannon v. State , 51 So.3d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We also accept the State's concession that the Williams Rule evidence should not have been admitted because the facts of the collateral crime and the underlying crime were not sufficiently similar, and the points of similarity did not have a special character, nor were they so unusual as to point to appellant. See Drake v. State , 400 So.2d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 1981). The error in admitting the Williams Rule evidence was not harmless. Thus, we REVERSE.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivet v. State, 1D15-4430
...evidence of a defendant's similar past crimes. See, e.g ., Cozzie v. State , 225 So.3d 717, 731 (Fla. 2017) ; Kroll v. State , 221 So.3d 1291, 1291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017). In this case, the issue is "reverse Williams rule" evidence. See Washington v. State , 737 So.2d 1208, 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA ......
- Ross v. State, CASE NO. 1D16–4050