Minick v. State
| Decision Date | 01 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-2266,89-2266 |
| Citation | 560 So.2d 386 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D1201 Shaun Delonte MINICK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and N. Joseph Durant, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Angelica D. Zayas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
Appellant, Shaun Delonte Minick, appeals his conviction and sentence for second degree murder with a firearm. Appellant contends that admitted testimony, concerning appellant's previous purchase of drugs from the eyewitness to the murder, constituted fundamental error, thus depriving him of a fair trial. We affirm.
Appellee, State, asserts that this testimony showed that the appellant was familiar with the neighborhood, having previously purchased cocaine there from the witness, and that the victim had stolen a VCR from appellant. Therefore, the State contends, the testimony was probative and relevant to demonstrate the appellant's knowledge of the area and his motive for the murder.
The test for admissibility of evidence of collateral crimes is relevancy. Heiney v. State, 447 So.2d 210 (Fla.1984). Evidence of other crimes is relevant if it casts light on the character of the crime for which the accused is being prosecuted, such as when it shows either motive, intent, absence of mistake, or identity. Ruffin v. State, 397 So.2d 277 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 368, 70 L.Ed.2d 194 (1981) (citing Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959)).
Further, because the evidence against appellant was overwhelming, any error in allowing the eyewitness to testify to prior dealings with appellant was harmless. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorsett v. State
...was relevant to explain why the children did not disclose the abuse for approximately five years. Likewise, in Minick v. State, 560 So.2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), the State argued that testimony regarding the defendant's prior purchase of drugs from the eyewitnesses to the murder was pr......
-
Nordelo v. State, 91-1163
...cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1028, 109 S.Ct. 1765, 104 L.Ed.2d 200 (1989); Smart v. State, 596 So.2d 786 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Minick v. State, 560 So.2d 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Sec. 90.404(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1989). "Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact." Secs. ......
-
Holland v. State, 78660
...fact in issue such as motive, intent, absence of mistake, or identity. Sec. 90.404(2)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993); see also Minick v. State, 560 So.2d 386, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). The record reflects that the purpose of the evidence in this case was to show Holland's propensity to struggle with a ......