Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 07 May 1997
• Citation: 692 So.2d 1014
• Parties: 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1137 Floyd WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. CASE NO. 95-0132.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1014

692 So.2d 1014

22 Fla. L. Weekly D1137

Floyd WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 95-0132.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

May 7, 1997.

Gene Reibman, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Aubin Wade Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

FARMER, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of armed burglary and robbery with a firearm on largely circumstantial evidence and the theory of principals. His two co-defendants were convicted of these and other crimes. On appeal he argues that it was error to admit evidence that he was recently released from jail and in failing to grant a mistrial for closing argument by the prosecutor that defendant had "gotten himself in trouble in Miami" when there was no evidence to that effect. We agree and reverse.

Any implication of collateral crimes, not relevant to any material issue, should not be admitted. Czubak v. State, 570 So.2d 925 (Fla.1990), (reference by witness to defendant as "escaped convict" held to be inadmissible collateral crime evidence). When a defendant moves for a mistrial based on the improper admission of collateral crime evidence, the motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. Salvatore v. State, 366 So.2d 745 (Fla.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S.Ct. 177, 62 L.Ed.2d 115 (1979). When this kind of irrelevant evidence is admitted, however, there is a presumption that the error was harmful, because of

"the danger that the jury will take the bad character or propensity to crime thus demonstrated as evidence of guilt of the crime charged."

Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903, 908 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 556, 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981). A reviewing court may affirm the conviction only if the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict could not have been affected, and a showing that the evidence against a defendant was "overwhelming" is insufficient. Castro v. State, 547 So.2d 111 (Fla.1989).

We do not think the state has overcome the presumption of harmful error in this case. Defendant was convicted upon circumstantial evidence of guilt, and under the law of principals. The evidence adduced, while certainly enough to permit a conviction, was not so one-sided as to withstand the prejudicial effect of the testimony about just being out of jail. The jury was necessarily required to draw inferences from the evidence presented, and defendant's previous incarceration could reasonably have swayed the jury to draw the most negative possible inferences. We are unable to say beyond a reasonable doubt that this error did not affect the verdict, and accordingly reverse and remand for a new trial. Czubak, 570 So.2d 925.

During the state's closing argument, the prosecutor made the following assertion:

"Now, we don't know what kind of trouble Floyd had...