Randall v. State, 68--409
| Citation | 239 So.2d 81 |
| Decision Date | 05 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 68--409,68--409 |
| Parties | Floyd Herman RANDALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Henry Gonzalez, Tampa, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
Appellant appeals a judgment and sentence imposed upon him for the crime of concealing stolen property. The property in question was certain ivory, jade and amethyst carvings which the evidence showed were stolen from Sheldon Klein on the night of January 28, 1967. These articles were found in the home of the appellant pursuant to a search made under the authority of a search warrant.
The appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence, the trial court's denial of his motion for mistrial, and the trial court's admission into evidence of the commission of a separate criminal offense.
We affirm the trial court's rulings on the two motions; however, we hold that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the commission of a separate criminal offense, under Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654.
The facts which establish the separate offense may be summarized as follows:
Mr. Brimmage, the owner of a small grocery store testified that his store had been entered sometime during the night of April 11, 1967 and that certain money order blanks, together with a money order machine used to make out the money orders, were missing on the morning of April 12, 1967. Detective Blitch testified that on April 26, 1967 he arrested 1 the appellant as he disembarked from his truck. After the arrest he testified that he sat behind the wheel of the truck, pulled down the sun visor, and some money orders fell out. These money orders turned out to be some of the ones stolen from Mr. Brimmage's store. This is the entire testimony as to the separate criminal offense.
The Williams case, supra, lays down the rule that if the separate offense is relevant and has probative value in proof of any issue in the case on trial, such evidence is admissible. However, if the evidence of the commission of another crime has as its sole relevancy the bad character or propensity of the accused to commit a crime, it is reversible error for such evidence to be admitted and considered by the jury.
Upon a careful reading of the entire transcript of the trial of this cause we can...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vazquez v. State
...v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959), and cases collected; Randall v. State, 239 So.2d 81, 82 (Fla.2d DCA 1970). The theory behind this line of cases is that such evidence, with rare exceptions, is so overwhelmingly prejudicial to a d......
-
Smith v. State, Z--100
...decisions have applied the so-called Williams rule. (See Simmons v. Wainwright, 271 So.2d 464 (Fla.1st DCA 1973); Randall v. State, 239 So.2d 81 (Fla.2d DCA 1970); Lucas v. State, 257 So.2d 261 (Fla.1st DCA The state counters that evidence of the cover-up was to show the state of mind of th......
-
Dinkens v. State, 72-560
...served was to illustrate Dinkens' had character and his propensity to commit robbery. 1 As such it was inadmissible. Randall v. State, Fla.App.2nd, 1970, 239 So.2d 81. Upon retrial, we do not foreclose the introduction of evidence concerning Dinkens' connection with the drive-in robbery pro......