Matthews v. State, 77-664
| Decision Date | 16 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-664,77-664 |
| Citation | 366 So.2d 170 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Tommy Lee MATTHEWS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Sharon Langer, Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before HENDRY and KEHOE, JJ., and EZELL, BOYCE F., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for burglary and receipt of stolen property. Among the points raised by appellant, one requires reversal.
Appellant, in his second point on appeal, contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to make collateral crimes the feature of his trial; thereby, depriving him of due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Sections 9 and 16, of the Constitution of the State of Florida. Our review of the record shows that the prosecutor introduced extensive evidence regarding a collateral offense to which appellant had entered a plea of Nolo contendere. It is evident from the record that the prosecutor's extensive utilization of such evidence was to emphasize appellant's involvement in this other crime, thereby implicating appellant with a criminal propensity, i. e., to make appellant's involvement in the collateral crime a main "feature" or theme in the instant case. Although the introduction of such evidence is permissible under certain circumstances, when it reaches to the extent as reflected by this record, in our opinion, it constitutes reversible error. See, e. g., Ashley v. State, 265 So.2d 685 (Fla.1972); Williams v. State, 117 So.2d 473 (Fla.1960); and Drayton v. State, 292 So.2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Accordingly, based upon this point, the judgment and sentence appealed are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. In light of this determination, it is unnecessary for us to consider the other points raised by appellant.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. State, 80-704
...cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959); Macklin v. State, 395 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and Matthews v. State, 366 So.2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The reference was irrelevant to the crime for which Rodriguez was on On appeal Rodriguez objects to the use of the tape......
-
Snowden v. State
...The Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence has not sanctioned such trials since the era of the Star Chamber." See also Matthews v. State, 366 So.2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Knox v. State, 361 So.2d 799 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). It is well settled, then, that the rule "that the State should not be pe......
-
Macklin v. State, 78-11
...117 So.2d 473 (Fla.1960) 5 ; accord, Ashley v. State, 265 So.2d 685 (Fla.1972), so as to deprive him of a fair trial. Matthews v. State, 366 So.2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Smith v. State, 344 So.2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Banks v. State, 298 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA We reverse the conviction......
-
Clark v. State, 77-1301
...the defendant was engaged in criminal conduct from which he was consistently fleeing the police. Cf. the principles in Matthews v. State, 366 So.2d 170 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); and Dibble v. State, 347 So.2d 1096 (Fla.2d DCA Having held that error appears in the record, we turn to the question or......