IZABELA A. SIMIONI, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND HENDERSON MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• O'Flaherty-Lewis v. State, 230 So. 3d 15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)
  …ning to A.D. was probative of appellant’s state of mind in accepting the money. Proper use of Williams rule evidence is “to refute [a defendant’s] theory .of defense that he was merely an innocent bystander” to criminal conduct, Tannihill v. State, 912 So. 2d 2, 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), to “disprove a defendant’s attempt to explain [her own] intent,” Miller v. State, 667 So. 2d 325, 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), or to show that a defendant “engaged in a plan” to separate victims from their money by a common schem…
• McCAIN v. State, 995 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
  …appellant,” and “the evidence of the matchbox was admitted solely to show propensity to possess cocaine at an earlier time, evidence which is inadmissible under the Williams Rule.” Id. at 982. By contrast, the Fourth District in Tannihill v. State, 912 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), affirmed the admission of Williams rule evidence concerning a previous drug sale, offered to rebut the defendant’s claim that he was an innocent bystander to the charged drug sale. The court rejected the argument that the charge…
• Fincher v. State, 137 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
  …e perpetrator of the charged crime. However, we need not decide whether the crimes contained a significant feature so as to allow the collateral crime to establish identity, because there is no issue of identity in this case. See Tannihill v. State, 912 So. 2d 2, 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (collateral crime evidence not used to establish identity where appellant conceded he was present at scene of crime, but was admissible to “refute appellant’s theory of defense that he was merely an innocent bystander”). The…