Snowden v. State
Citation | 537 So.2d 1383,14 Fla. L. Weekly 257 |
Decision Date | 24 January 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 86-1249,86-1249 |
Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 257 Harold Grant SNOWDEN, Sr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bailey, Gerstein, Rashkind & Dresnick and F. Lee Bailey and Paul M. Rashkind, Sp. Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Janet Reno, State Atty., and Paul Mendelson, Asst. State Atty., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Harold Grant Snowden appeals his convictions on five counts of sexual battery on two children: LB, a female aged four, and her infant brother, JB, aged six months. While we find no merit in any of the numerous points on appeal raised by Snowden, we find worthy of discussion Snowden's contention that the introduction by the State of evidence to show that the defendant had committed on two other children (a five-year-old boy named GW and a six-year-old girl named KM) similar acts of sexual battery--conceded by the defendant to be unobjectionable on relevancy grounds--infringed upon his right to a fair trial when, in violation of Williams v. State, 117 So.2d 473 (Fla.1960), this otherwise admissible evidence became a feature of the trial rather than a minor part of it.
The sanctioned use of similar fact evidence to establish a fact or facts in issue in a criminal prosecution continues to be fraught with the danger of convicting a person not for the crime charged, but for his criminal propensities or bad character. The concern is that "the jury may choose to punish the defendant for the similar rather than the charged act, or the jury may infer that the defendant is an evil person inclined to violate the law." Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, ----, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 1499-1500, 99 L.Ed.2d 771, 780 (1988).
Jackson v. State, 451 So.2d 458, 461 (Fla.1984) ( ).
See Peek v. State, 488 So.2d 52 (Fla.1986). But notwithstanding the danger posed by the admission of similar fact evidence, the Florida Supreme Court has for some time adhered to a broad rule of admissibility based on the relevancy of the evidence to a fact to be proved. Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959) [Williams I ] ( ). 1 This rule that relevant evidence is admissible even if it points to the commission of another crime is now codified in the Florida Evidence Code:
"Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity."
§ 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1987).
A year after Williams I, the Florida Supreme Court announced the counterpoise to that decision. In Williams II, [Williams v. State, 117 So.2d 473 (Fla.1960) ], where evidence establishing that the murder weapon had been found in the defendant's car also established that the weapon had been found in the course of the investigation of a later murder-robbery committed by the defendant, the court reversed the murder conviction and sentence of death:
Williams v. State, 117 So.2d at 475-76 ( ).
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 permitted to make the evidence of other crimes the feature of the trial" is a limitation on the rule of relevancy. Bryan v. State, 533 So.2d 744, 746 (Fla.1988). 2
It is clear, however, that similar fact evidence will not be considered to be a feature of the case merely because a large amount of it comes before the jury. 3 , 4 More is required for reversal than a showing that the evidence is voluminous.
Green v. State, 228 So.2d 397, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).
Thus, in Townsend v. State, 420 So.2d 615, 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), the court stated that "the number of pages of testimony and exhibits should not be the sole test by any means" and went on to conclude that the jury had not been overwhelmed by the evidence because it had been given cautionary instructions no less than twelve times and, despite the quantity of evidence pertaining to the collateral crimes, had acquitted the defendant of one of the charged murders. Likewise, in Headrick v. State, 240 So.2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), the court affirmed the defendant's convictions of the burglary and grand larceny crimes charged--rejecting the defendant's argument that the State's evidence covered so many different and separate transactions that it "transcended relevance" and, by its volume (nine witnesses called to establish six other burglaries), constituted an effort by the State to show the bad character or criminal propensities of the accused. See Rogers v. State, 511 So.2d 526 (Fla.1987) ( ); Stano v. State, 473 So.2d 1282 (Fla.1985) ( ); Burr v. State, 466 So.2d 1051 (Fla.1985) ( ); Wilson v. State, 330 So.2d 457 (Fla.1976) ( ); Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So.2d 201 (1948) ( ); Johnson v. State, 432 So.2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ( ); Espey v. State, 407 So.2d 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) ( ); Dean v. State, 277 So.2d 13 (Fla.1973) ( ).
Finally, where the defendant's trial strategy causes the similar fact evidence to outweigh the evidence directly relating to the crime charged, the disparity may be disregarded entirely. In Sias v. State, 416 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), this court rejected the defendant's feature claim, even though more time was spent and evidence presented on the collateral crime than on the charged crime, because the disproportion was caused not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gezzi v. State
...not the admissibility of the evidence.); State v. Hauck, 172 Conn. 140, 374 A.2d 150 (1976) (common scheme or design); Snowden v. State, 537 So.2d 1383 (Fla.App.1989) (identity, credibility of witness); Calloway v. State, 520 So.2d 665 (Fla.App.1988) (when crime occurs in the familial setti......
-
State v. Tolman
...(Ala.1988); Soper v. State, 731 P.2d 587 (Alaska App.1987); People v. Hunt, 72 Cal.App.3d 190, 139 Cal.Rptr. 675 (1977); Snowden v. State, 537 So.2d 1383 (Fla.App.1989); Stwalley v. State, 534 N.E.2d 229 (Ind.1989); Andrews v. State, 529 N.E.2d 360 (Ind.App.1988); State v. Baker, 535 So.2d ......
-
Wright v. State
...measure the number of references the prosecution made to such evidence. See Morrow, 931 So.2d at 1022-23 (citing Snowden v. State, 537 So.2d 1383, 1385 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)). However, voluminous references to a collateral crime may indicate a prohibited transgression, even if it is not the so......
-
Billie v. State, 3D01-1303.
...(1997); Heuring v. State, 513 So.2d 122 (Fla.1987); see also Foburg v. State, 744 So.2d 1175, 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Snowden v. State, 537 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Johnson v. State, 432 So.2d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Similarly, where the probative value of the evidence is substantia......