CURMIT SIBERT, 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.
The court held that even if the trial court erred in admitting evidence of prior weapon possession, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to overwhelming other evidence.
[1] Evidence of prior possession of weapons and prior incarceration for handling concealed weapons is improper absent notice under Williams rule.
[2] Improper admission of evidence may be harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt if other evidence of guilt is overwhelming.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and shooting a deadly missile into a home. He appealed, arguing the trial court improperly admitted …
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 Williams Rule Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Curmit Sibert, appeals from his convictions. We affirm.
The defendant was charged by four-count information with attempted first degree murder, two counts of shooting a deadly missile into his former girlfriend’s home, and aggravated stalking with a firearm. After trial by jury, the defendant was found guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm, a lesser included offense of attempted first degree murder; and guilty of the two shooting counts. The defendant appeals from these convictions.
The defendant contends that, absent a notice of intent to rely on Williams rule evidence, the trial court erred by allowing the State to elicit testimony that the defendant had possessed weapons before, that he had handled concealed weapons before and had gone to jail as a result, and that he had handled firearms a long time ago when he was 18. The defendant alleges that this error was compounded when the State argued in closing that the significance of the defendant having possessed a handgun when he was 18 was that the gun involved in shooting into the victim’s apartment was a small handgun.
Although we agree that the State’s line of questioning was improper in light of Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla.2002), we find that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986), where the State presented the testimony of the victim and two of her family members who unequivocally identified the defendant as the shooter. The defendant contends that the testimony of his alibi witnesses that he was at an all-night card game at the time of the shooting creates reasonable doubt that the error was not harmless. We disagree where the alibi witnesses came forward for the first time on the second day of trial and where their testimony was riddled with inconsistencies regarding the date and time of the card game. There fore, there is no reasonable probability that the error affected the verdict.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Swett v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)
- Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 2002)