Paul v. State, 76--316
| Decision Date | 20 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--316,76--316 |
| Citation | 340 So.2d 1249 |
| Parties | Bobby L. PAUL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Elliot H. Scherker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The defendant appeals his conviction by the court, without a jury, and a sentence of seven years in the state prison for the crimes of 1) breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and 2) grand larceny. Three points are presented. The first urges reversible error because of the admission into evidence of defendant's confession made upon interrogation by police officers after defendant's arrest that he had been involved in seventeen specific cases of burglary. The second urges denial of a motion to suppress 'all written and oral statements made by the Defendant.' The third urges error for the imposition of a general sentence upon the finding of guilt of the two separate crimes.
We dispose of the second point first. No violation of defendant's constitutional rights under the Fifth, Sixth or Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States appears in this record.
The sole factor to be considered upon the admission of the confession of involvement in other burglaries is whether the evidence was relevant to the charge in this case. The rule has been stated in Ashley v. State, 265 So.2d 685 (Fla.1972):
'It is well settled in this state that evidence of other crimes is admissible if it casts light on the character of the act under investigation by showing either motive, intent, absence of mistake, common scheme, identity or a system or general pattern of criminality so that the evidence of such other crimes would have a relevant or material bearing upon some essential aspect of the offense then being tried.'
The record in the present case shows that after the arrest, the defendant was taken into a room where the folders containing information on seventeen unsolved burglaries were laid out on the table. He was asked about his involvement in these cases. 1 The officers testified that the defendant admitted that he committed the burglaries and kept saying,
We find that as to the crime for which the defendant was tried, there is no relevance in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swafford v. State
...Williams rule and section 90.404(2). Id. at 461. Moreover, Jackson cited with approval the following statement from Paul v. State, 340 So.2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 953 There is no doubt that this admission [to prior unrelated crimes] would go far to convince ......
-
Dorfman v. State
...decision suggests, contrary to the Clark limitation on Benson (n. 7 above), that all general sentences are improper.10 Paul v. State, 340 So.2d 1249 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) (dictum).11 Dorfman v. State, 333 So.2d 481 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), essentially adopting the Clark limitation on Benson described......
-
Smith v. State, SC01-2103.
...departs from the standard of the ordinary in that it requires proof of a particular crime." 451 So.2d at 461 (quoting Paul v. State, 340 So.2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)). Smith's boast that the victims in this case were the thirteenth or fourteenth people that he had shot did little to ......
-
Snowden v. State
...the crime charged, it must be excluded." Jackson v. State, 451 So.2d 458, 461 (Fla.1984) (quoting with approval Paul v. State, 340 So.2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)). See Peek v. State, 488 So.2d 52 (Fla.1986). But notwithstanding the danger posed by the admission of similar fact evidence......