TOMMY LEE MATTHEWS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Tommy Lee Matthews appealed his conviction for burglary and receipt of stolen property, arguing the trial court improperly allowed the prosecutor to make a collateral crime the feature of trial, depriving him of due process. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding the prosecutor's extensive use of evidence regarding a nolo contendere plea to another crime constituted reversible error.
Yes. While evidence of collateral crimes is permissible under certain circumstances, when such evidence is used extensively to emphasize a defendant's involvement in another crime and make it a main feature or theme of the trial, it constitutes reversible error.
[1] The extensive introduction of evidence regarding a collateral offense, used to emphasize a defendant's criminal propensity, constitutes reversible error and a deprivation…
[2] A prosecutor's utilization of collateral crimes evidence to make such offenses a central theme of a trial, rather than for a permissible evidentiary purpose, is impermiss…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the prosecutor introduced extensive evidence regarding a collateral offense to which appellant had entered a plea of nolo contendere. It is evident from the record that the prosecutor's extensive utilization of such evidence was to emphasize appellant's involvement in this other crime, thereby implicating appellant with a criminal propensity”
Establishes the prosecutorial misconduct at issue—using collateral crime evidence extensively to suggest criminal propensity
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatthews was convicted of burglary and receipt of stolen property. During trial, the prosecutor introduced extensive evidence regarding a collateral o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Criminal Propensity cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, defendant below, brings this appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for burglary and receipt of stolen property. Among the points raised by appellant, one requires reversal.
Appellant, in his second point on appeal, contends that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to make collateral crimes the feature of his trial; thereby, depriving him of due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Sections 9 and 16, of the Constitution of the State of Florida. Our review of the record shows that the prosecutor introduced extensive evidence regarding a collateral offense to which appellant had entered a plea of nolo contendere. It is evident from the record that the prosecutor’s extensive utilization of such evidence was to emphasize appellant’s involvement in this other crime, thereby implicating appellant with a criminal propensity, i. e., to make appellant’s involvement in the collateral crime a main “feature” or theme in the instant case. Although the introduction of such evidence is permissible under certain circumstances, when it reaches to the extent as reflected by this record, in our opinion, it constitutes reversible error. See, e. g., Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla.1972); Williams v. State, 117 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1960); and Drayton v. State, 292 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Accordingly, based upon this point, the judgment and sentence appealed are reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. In light of this determination, it is unnecessary for us to consider the other points raised by appellant.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MacKlin v. State, 395 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…2, 1977, to have become a feature not an incident of his trial in violation of the caveat in Williams v. State, 117 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1960)5; accord, Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1972), so as to deprive him of a fair trial. Matthews v. State, 366 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Smith v. State, 344 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Banks v. State, 298 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). We reverse the convictions and order new trials, with the offenses contained in Counts I, VI, VII, and VIII to be tried sepa…
-
Snowden v. State, 537 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…focusing on the character, general reputation and propensity of defendant Reyes to engage in criminal activities. The Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence has not sanctioned such trials since the era of the Star Chamber.” 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 rele…
-
Isidro Rodriguez v. State, 433 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…So. 2d 668 (Fla.1978); Williams v. State, 117 So. 2d 473 (Fla.1960); Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959); Macklin v. State, 395 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) and Matthews v. State, 366 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The reference was irrelevant to the crime for which Rodriguez was on trial. On appeal Rodriguez objects to the use of the tapes as a denial of his right to counsel; however, while that ground was presented during the hearing on…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 117 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1960)
- Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 1972)
- Masse v. State, 292 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Drayton v. State, 292 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)