FREDDRICK HINES, APPELLANT,
v.
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 reversed Hines's robbery and firearm convictions because the trial court erroneously admitted evidence of collateral crimes for which he had been previously acquitted, applying the same reversible error identified in a parallel prior appeal.
Evidence of collateral crimes for which a defendant was previously acquitted is inadmissible and constitutes reversible error when admitted over timely objection.
[1] Evidence of collateral crimes for which a defendant was previously acquitted is inadmissible when offered at trial and constitutes reversible error if admitted over timel…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHines was convicted of robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The trial court admitted evidence of collateral crimes…
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 Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
WEBSTER, J.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant seeks review of his convictions for robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and of the sentences imposed for those offenses. Appellant argues that the trial court (1) abused its discretion in admitting evidence of collateral crimes of which he had previously been acquitted; (2) abused its discretion in denying his motion in limine to exclude his flight from the police and physical evidence found after his arrest; (3) erroneously denied his motion to suppress statements he made to the police; and (4) erroneously found that he qualified for sentencing as a prison releasee reoffender. We affirm without further discussion as to issues two and three. However, as the state correctly concedes, the first issue is controlled by our previous decision in Hines v. State, 982 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), in which we reversed the same appellant’s convictions on different charges of robbery with a firearm and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court had committed reversible error when it admitted over a timely objection evidence of a collateral crime of which appellant had previously been acquitted. Accordingly, as in that case, we reverse appellant’s convictions and remand for a new trial. This disposition renders appellant’s fourth issue moot.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
DAVIS and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freddrick Hines v. State, 983 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…ries (one of which occurred on March 3 and the other of which occurred on March 15, 2002). We have since reversed the convictions in both of those cases, and remanded for new trials. Hines v. State, 982 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Hines v. State, 982 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). However, our decisions in those two appeals are not directly controlling here because, in those two cases, appellant had been acquitted of the charge alleging possession of a firearm by a convicted felon on March 21, 2002, befor…
Authorities Cited
- Hines v. State, 982 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)