Reyna v. State
| Decision Date | 26 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D19-2306,4D19-2306 |
| Citation | 302 So.3d 1025 |
| Parties | Jose REYNA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kristen A. Kawass of Law Offices of Kawass, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We reverse convictions for three counts of sexual battery because the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of a collateral crime. We remand for a new trial in which the collateral crime evidence is excluded.
The state charged Jose Reyna with three counts of sexual battery under section 794.011(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2015), by a person eighteen years of age or older upon a person over eighteen. All three counts arose from one encounter; count 1 alleged digital penetration of the victim's vagina, count 2 alleged oral penetration or union with the victim's vagina, and count 3 alleged penile penetration or union with the victim's vagina.
The state timely filed a notice of its intent to offer Williams1 rule evidence pursuant to section 90.404(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2015). The state sought to introduce evidence of a separate incident that occurred in October 2010, described in more detail below. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court ruled that the testimony was admissible.
The victim testified that she met appellant through his wife, with whom she worked. She vacationed with the couple and had stayed at their house in a spare bedroom numerous times after socializing with them. Prior to the night of the incident, nothing inappropriate had occurred between her and appellant.
On January 18, 2015, the victim made plans with the wife to socialize. The game plan for the evening was to hang out, have fun, and help the victim forget an unhappy personal matter. The victim went to the Reyna home the evening of the incident with a packed bag because she was planning on staying overnight.
Using her car, the victim drove the Reynas to the Clematis Street area of West Palm Beach. Their first stop was a wine bar, where they ordered food, drinks, and a bottle of wine.
The trio next went to a different bar where they ordered three rounds of drinks, danced, and had a good time. By the time they left, the victim testified that she was "buzzed." Next, the three went to a restaurant, owned by an acquaintance of the Reynas, for more drinks.
After leaving the restaurant, the group returned to the Reyna home. Because the house was being renovated, one of the bedrooms was unavailable. The Reynas took the other bedroom, and the victim prepared to sleep on the couch in the living room. The couch was an L-shaped, sectional couch. Once they arrived at the home, the victim poured herself a glass of red wine from a bottle in the kitchen and sat on the couch. She spilled the wine on her t-shirt and changed into something else. Then she had some tequila.
The victim realized that it was appellant. She swatted at him and asked, "What are you doing?" She told him he needed to go back to bed.
The victim described the rest of the night as a series of "flashes." She kept falling back asleep, only to be awakened by different types of touching.
The next time she awoke to appellant kissing her chest, after having unzipped her fleece pullover. She repeatedly swatted at him, asked him what he was doing, and told him, "Go to bed with your wife."
The prosecutor asked the victim why she didn't yell or scream during the events on the couch. The victim explained:
I mean, this is—this is my friend. This is somebody that I know. And also it was—I was completely humiliated that his wife was my really good friend. And I didn't want her to know. I didn't—it was just such a—it wasn't even that terribly what I would call violent. It was just so inappropriate and so shocking and so unexpected. I'm not really the type of person that would scream or get that terribly emotional, anyway. But I—I mean, I didn't want [the wife] to know what was going on. And I did not understand why he was doing it.
After the final assault, the victim fell asleep. She woke up the next morning and took a shower. While in the shower, the victim realized that something was wrong. She had abnormal discharge and cramping in her abdomen. She threw her clothes in her overnight bag and left the house. For the rest of the day, the victim hung out at home and reported the incident to no one.
The victim testified that her memories about the incident returned at work the next day. She began panicking but continued working. When she encountered appellant's wife, she did not tell her what had happened and insisted that she was busy with work.
After the victim told her sister about the assault, the victim decided to go to the hospital, where a nurse performed a rape exam and the incident was reported to the police.
Later, the police contacted the victim to participate in recorded, controlled calls with appellant. On the calls, when confronted by the victim, appellant repeatedly said he was sorry, but he also said he had no memory of anything:
... [T]o tell you the truth what I remember is ... being told to go to bed by [my wife]. And then I—and then I went to bed and then I woke up and I had this massive headache.
At another point in the call he said
At the admissibility hearing, the Williams rule witness identified herself as a detective at a local law enforcement agency, assigned to a unit that focused on sex crimes. She said she had socialized occasionally with the Reynas.
In October 2010, the witness made plans to attend the "Moonfest" festival on Clematis Street with the Reynas and another person. They met at the Reynas’ house for food and drinks before leaving for the festival. On Clematis Street, they danced, talked, and drank "to the point of impairment."
At one of the bars, the witness and appellant were in the back "just talking [and] hanging out." Somehow, they got pushed out the back door into the alley and then the door closed. The door was flush with the wall and there was no handle, so they could not get back into the bar from the alley.
Appellant's sudden action ripped her pantyhose. The witness pushed appellant to get out from underneath him and "took off running." She ran to a convenience store and used the phone to call her mother, who came to pick her up. At trial, the witness testified consistently with her testimony at the prior hearing, adding just a few details.
Appellant testified at trial. He claimed he had no memory of assaulting the victim. On the night of the incident, he fell asleep on the couch in the living room, which he often did when he had back problems. The next thing he remembered was his wife waking him up and taking him to bed. He said he was completely clothed when his wife came to get him.
The wife testified that she never saw anything inappropriate occur between appellant and the victim. Both Reynas testified that a key point of the evening was to discuss the victim's poor job performance and to alert her that her job was in jeopardy. Both Reynas testified that appellant suffered from a herniated disc and that he took a prescribed medication, Flexeril, after he arrived back at home the evening of the incident
Appellant denied the Williams rule witness's allegations. He stated that the witness kissed him once. He said no other sexual contact occurred.
As to the controlled calls, appellant said he was in shock and disbelief. He testified that the victim was a close friend in a fragile state of mind from a breakup over the holidays. He did not know what was going on and he wanted to calm both her and the situation down.
Appellant was convicted of all three crimes. On appeal, he primarily raises the Williams rule issue.
The trial court abused its discretion by admitting collateral crime evidence under section 90.404(2)(c) because, under the McLean v. State analytical framework, there were insufficient points of similarity between the charged crime and the collateral crime
For years, the admissibility of other crimes, wrongs, or acts was evaluated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evidence
...confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence” under section 90.403. Reyna v. State, 302 So. 3d 1025 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) There is risk of undue prejudice pursuant to section 90.403 when a Williams rule witness is a detective who concentrates in th......