The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . In its classic form, the Williams rule, which was first codified at section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes . . .
. . . State , 117 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1960) ; see also § 90.404(2)(b)1., Fla. Stat. . . . See § 90.404(2)(b)1., Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . The two witnesses' testimony was admissible under section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (2017). . . . State , 262 So.3d 228, 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (observing that under section 90.404(2)(c), "evidence . . . The supreme court confronted section 90.404(2) in McLean v. State , 934 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 2006). . . . The two-step process when a trial court confronts a section 90.404(2) issue is that the "court first . . . The evidence was admissible under section 90.404(2)(b) and (c). See State v. . . .
. . . The State timely filed a notice pursuant to section 90.404(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), of its intent . . .
. . . ."); see §§ 90.404(2) and 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2018). . . .
. . . ." § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2018). . . . No notice is required for evidence of offenses used for impeachment or on rebuttal. § 90.404(d), Fla. . . . the category of relevant evidence under section 90.402; therefore, no pretrial notice under section 90.404 . . . Ehrhardt, supra, at § 404.17 ("Because the evidence is admissible under section 90.402, rather than 90.404 . . . (2), the ten day notice provision in section 90.404(2) is not applicable. . . .
. . . ." § 90.404(2)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .
. . . notice stated that this collateral crime evidence would be introduced "pursuant to Florida Statute 90.404 . . . Rather, the court found the evidence admissible under section 90.404(2)(c), Florida Statutes, to prove . . . Section 90.404(2)(d) 1., Florida Statutes, requires the State to give written notice of its intent to . . . (2)(b) 2., or a "sexual offense" defined in section 90.404(2)(c) 2. . . . Because this language is identical to the language in section 90.404(2)(b) 1., the two statutes should . . .
. . . Koelber, 389 So.2d 1191, 1193 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) ) ); see also § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .
. . . Although the State sought admission of collateral-crime evidence under section 90.404(2)(a), Florida . . . Statutes, we find that it was admissible under section 90.404(2)(c). . . . (2)(a), we conclude that it was admissible under section 90.404(2)(c). . . . sufficient record to affirm its admission under section 90.404(2)(c). . . . 90.404(2)(a). . . .
. . . So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) ] -rule evidence, "is governed by the requirements and limitations of section 90.404 . . . (quoting § 90.404, Fla. Stat.). . . .
. . . The State did not file a notice of intent to rely on an uncharged crime, pursuant to section 90.404(2 . . .
. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . ." § 90.404(2)(d)1, Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . only required to give notice of its intent to rely on Williams[ ] rule evidence pursuant to section 90.404 . . .
. . . Section 90.404(2)(b) provides that prior acts of child molestation are admissible in a criminal case . . . Section 90.404(2)(b)"broadly provides that evidence of the defendant's commission of other acts of child . . . However, despite the relaxed standard of admissibility in child molestation cases under section 90.404 . . . As used in section 90.404(2)(b), "child molestation" includes, among other crimes, the sexual battery . . . See § 90.404(2)(b) 2. . . .
. . . of the case, the State filed what is commonly referred to as a " Williams Rule" notice under section 90.404 . . . Because Taylor was charged with a crime involving child molestation, pursuant to section 90.404(2)(b) . . . State , 176 So.3d 310, 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), even though section 90.404(2)(b) 1. broadened the admissibility . . . So.2d 1248, 1258-59 (Fla. 2006) (acknowledging that the 2001 enactment by the Legislature of section 90.404 . . . The definition of "child molestation" is set forth in section 90.404(2)(b) 2. . . .
. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . .
. . . timely objection asserting that the State was introducing improper character evidence in violation of § 90.404 . . . comment asserting that the State was introducing improper character evidence in violation of section 90.404 . . . persisted in advancing this uncharged and unproven theory, the defense objected, referencing section 90.404 . . .
. . . sustaining the defendant's objection to the state's notice of intent to offer evidence under section 90.404 . . .
. . . ." § 90.404(2)(b)(1), Fla. Stat.; see also Williams v. State , 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959). . . .
. . . victim's experience with Thompson, an incident that was introduced as similar-act evidence under section 90.404 . . .
. . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (codified in section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes ). . . .
. . . Notice of Intent to Offer Evidence of Other Criminal Offenses (Williams Rule Evidence) under section 90.404 . . . The former is governed by section 90.404, Florida Statutes, whereas the latter is governed by the general . . .
. . . As the case progressed, the State filed a Williams rule notice pursuant to section 90.404(2)(d)(l), Florida . . . opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” § 90.404 . . . See § 90.404(2)(b)(l), Fla. . . .
. . . State, 839 So.2d 807, 810 (Fla. 4th 2003); see also § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). . . . Section 90.404(2)(a), " Florida- Statutes (2016), states in its entirety: Similar fact evidence of other . . . but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. § 90.404 . . .
. . . Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that similar fact evidence of collateral crimes . . . intends to offer, describing them with the particularity required of an indictment or information.” § 90.404 . . . This was more than adequate to meet the requirements of section 90.404(2)(d)(1). . . .
. . . State, 112 So.3d 564, 565-66 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (internal citation omitted); see also § 90.404(2)(a) . . .
. . . solely to prove the defendant’s bad character or propensity to commit crime, in violation of section 90.404 . . .
. . . Under section 90.404(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2013), and McLean v. . . .
. . . Eh-rhardt distinguished it from Williams rule evidence, stating “it seems that both the language of Section 90.404 . . .
. . . Id. at 291-92 (citing § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000)). . . .
. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat; (2015). . . . The February 25 incident, therefore, was relevant and admissible as motive evidence under section 90.404 . . .
. . . admissibility of evidence of other crimes, .wrongs, or acts that has since been codified in section 90.404 . . .
. . . introducing evidence at the final hearing—over her objections—purportedly excluded by sections 90.403 and 90.404 . . .
. . . trial, the State filed a notice of intent to introduce this collateral crime evidence under section 90.404 . . . State, 829 So.2d 901, 911 (Fla. 2002) (citing § 90.404(1)(c), Fla. Stat.). . . .
. . . .” § 90.404(1), Fla. Stat. (2015). . . . . § 90.404(l)(b)l., Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .
. . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959); see also § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . .
. . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959), and section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2013). . . . This view is commonly referred to in Florida as the Williams rule and is codified in section 90.404(2 . . . Section 90.404(2)(d)2., Florida Statutes (2013), governs the use of a limiting jury instruction when . . .
. . . , also known as Williams-rule evidence, “is governed by the requirements and limitations of section 90.404 . . . (quoting § 90.404, Fla. Stat.). . . .
. . . Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2014), provides that “[s]imilar fact evidence of other crimes . . .
. . . See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . .
. . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) has been codified in section 90.404, Florida Statutes. . . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). . . .
. . . inextricably intertwined with the charged offenses is not subject to the notice requirements of section 90.404 . . .
. . . State, 99 So.3d 1001, 1002-03 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (finding that pursuant to section 90.404(l)(b), Florida . . .
. . . See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . including other crimes, wrongs, or acts, as the introduction of such evidence would be contrary to section 90.404 . . .
. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . .
. . . Reverse Williams rule evidence is evidence offered by the defense pursuant-to .section 90.404(2), Florida . . .
. . . See § 90.404(2)(a) (excluding evidence of other acts when offered solely to prove bad character or propensity . . .
. . . permitted to introduce into evidence a December 2007 crime involving the defendant pursuant to section 90.404 . . . discretion by allowing the State to introduce the 2007 crime evidence pursuant to Williams and section 90.404 . . . ), specifically arguing that the 2007 crime was not “relevant to prove a material fact in issue.” § 90.404 . . .
. . . molesting any other child, although “similar fact” evidence did come in (over his objection) under section 90.404 . . .
. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). “The test of inadmissibility is a lack of relevancy.” Conde v. . . .
. . . During the pendency of the case, the State filed a Williams rule notice pursuant to section 90.404(2) . . . In 2001, the Florida Legislature enacted section 90.404'(2)(b), which addresses the admissibility of . . . State, 934 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 2006), collateral offense evidence admitted pursuant to section 90.404(2) . . . In applying the balancing test set forth in section 90.403, in conjunction with section 90.404(2)(b), . . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), later codified in section 90.404, Florida Statutes. . . . .
. . . State, 19 So.3d 277, 291-92 (Fla.2009) (citing § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000)). . . .
. . . Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2013), known as the Williams rule, addresses the admission of . . . State, 513 So.2d 122, 124 (Fla.1987), superseded by statute on other grounds, § 90.404(2)(b), Fla. . . . See § 90.404(2)(b), (c), Fla. Stat. (2013). . . . .
. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2014). . . . See § 90.404(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2014). In Heuring v. . . . After Heuring was decided, the Legislature enacted section 90.404(2)(b), see ch. 2001-221, § 1, Laws . . . Section 90.404(2)(b)l., Florida Statutes (2014) provides: ' In a criminal case in which the defendant . . . Thus, even in child molestation cases, the application of section 90.403 "ensures that section 90.404 . . .
. . . State, 561 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla.1990) (citing § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1985)). . . .
. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2013). . . .
. . . Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), allows for the introduction of collateral act evidence . . . of child molestation ... may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.” § 90.404 . . . In that case, the Supreme Court held that the admission of collateral crime evidence under section 90.404 . . .
. . . to a missing engine was not sufficient to constitute similar fact evidence admissible under section 90.404 . . .
. . . Pursuant to section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes: Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or . . . but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. § 90.404 . . .
. . . See § 90.404(2)(b)l., Fla. Stat. . . . incorrectly admitted as inextricably intertwined with the battery, may have been admissible under section 90.404 . . . See McLean, 934 So.2d at 1263 (approving use of collateral crime evidence admitted under section 90.404 . . .
. . . . § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. § 90.404 . . . See McLean, 934 So.2d at 1259 (explaining that section 90.404(2)(b) “broadly provides that evidence of . . .
. . . Under section 90.404(2)(b)l., Florida Statutes (2010), “[i]n a criminal case in which the defendant is . . . Although section 90.404(2)(b) “broadly provides that evidence of the defendant’s commission of other . . .
. . . the State had not filed a notice of intent to use evidence of prior bad acts as required by section 90.404 . . . In turn, the State argued that it need not comply with the requirements of section 90.404(2) because . . . evidence of a prior wrong or act, the State did not file the pretrial notice required under section 90.404 . . .
. . . State, 19 So.3d 277, 291-92 (Fla.2009) (emphasis in original) (citing section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes . . . See § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. . . .
. . . charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.404 . . .
. . . charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.404 . . .
. . . charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.404 . . .
. . . Under section 90.404(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2012), “evidence of a pertinent character trait of the . . .
. . . Carlisle further contends the evidence was admissible under sections 90.404(2) and 90.608(2), Florida . . . A concurring opinion briefly discussed the application of section 90.404(2)(a) ('Williams rule evidence . . . Section 90.404(2) (Reverse Williams Rule Evidence) The evidence of the victim’s recantation was also . . . admissible under section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), as reverse Williams rule evidence. . . . For evidence to be admissible under section 90.404(2)(a), the evidence must have probative value to show . . .
. . . to trial, the State filed notice of intent to introduce similar fact evidence, pursuant to section 90.404 . . . The trial court relied on section 90.404(2)(b)(l), which addresses the admissibility of Williams rule . . . molestation is admissible, and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. § 90.404 . . . court must consider in determining whether collateral crime evidence should be admitted under section 90.404 . . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), and codified by section 90.404(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). . . .
. . . APPENDIX 2.4 EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS -WILLIAMS RULE” § 90.404(2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(c) . . . See section 90.404(2)(b), Fla. Stat., effective July 1, 2001, in child molestation eases. . . . See 90.404(2)(c) Fla. Stat., effective July 1, 2011, for cases involving sexual offenses. . . . See section 90.404(2)(b), Fla. Stat., effective July 1, 2001, in child molestation cases. . . . See 90.404(2)(c) Fla. Stat., effective July 1, 2011, for cases involving sexual offenses. . . .
. . . Section 90.404, Florida Statutes (2001), provides that evidence of a person’s character is inadmissible . . . The specific exception pertinent to this case is section 90.404(l)(b)2., which allows for the admission . . . trial court erred, Loureiro cites to the only Florida case which makes a specific reference to section 90.404 . . . We also note that the language of section 90.404(l)(b)2. does not state the rebuttal evidence is limited . . . Thus, we conclude section 90.404(l)(b)2. is a statutory exception if the supreme court has adopted a . . .
. . . The requirements and limitations of section 90.404, Florida Statutes (2009), govern similar fact evidence . . . that the threat evidence constitutes Williams rule evidence subject to the requirements of section 90.404 . . . Section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes (2009), provides that “[similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs . . . intends to offer, describing them with the particularity required of an indictment or information. § 90.404 . . .
. . . participation in four robberies, was improper admission of prior bad acts, inadmissible under section 90.404 . . .
. . . allowing the state to introduce collateral crime evidence without providing ten days’ notice under section 90.404 . . . The notice requirement of section 90.404(2)(d)l. did not apply, and even if it did, any error was harmless . . .
. . . See, e.g., § 90.404(2), Fla. . . . See, e.g., § 90.404(2), Fla. . . .
. . . In criminal prosecutions for child molestation, section 90.404(2)(b), Florida Statutes, permits the use . . . evidence of prior acts of child molestation “for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.” § 90.404 . . .
. . . State, 72 So.3d 248, 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . State, 22 So.3d 619, 621 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also §§ 90.402, 90.403, 90.404(2), Fla. . . .
. . . to provide written notice that it would use Williams rule evidence at trial, as required by section 90.404 . . . Regarding the lack of notice required by section 90.404(2)(d), Florida Statutes, “[a] lack of notice . . .
. . . file or serve a notice of its intent to rely upon other crimes, wrongs or acts, pursuant to section 90.404 . . . charged in the information nor properly noticed and determined to be admissible pursuant to section 90.404 . . . State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (establishing the “Williams rule” test, later codified in section 90.404 . . . constituted "similar fact” evidence of which the State was required to give proper notice under section 90.404 . . .
. . . .” § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). We explained in McGirth v. . . . The requirements and limitations of section 90.404 govern similar fact evidence while the general rule . . . See § 90.404(2), Fla. Stat. (2008); see, e.g., Durousseau v. . . .
. . . court, Correll argued only that the evidence violated Florida’s Williams rule, codified at Section 90.404 . . . the state law ground with the following analysis: Correll argues that this testimony violated section 90.404 . . .
. . . Similar crime evidence, also known as Williams rule evidence, is codified in section 90.404(2)(a), Florida . . .
. . . whether ‘a sufficiently unique pattern of criminal activity [justifies] admission’ ” under section 90.404 . . . State, 110 So.2d 654, 663 (Fla.1959); see § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008). . . . .
. . . The clearly established law applying to this type of issue is section 90.404(2)(b)l., Florida Statutes . . . molestation is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.” § 90.404 . . .
. . . State, 72 So.3d 248, 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat.). . . .
. . . charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under section 90.404 . . .
. . . State, 885 So.2d 1010, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citing § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2008)). . . .
. . . The Williams rule is codified in section 90.404 of the Florida Statutes, and states: Similar fact evidence . . . but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. § 90.404 . . . the State did not provide proper notice of its intent to use such evidence, as is required by section 90.404 . . . admissible as Williams rule evidence because of the State’s failure to provide proper notice under section 90.404 . . . No notice is required for evidence of offenses used for impeachment or on rebuttal.” § 90.404(2)(c)l. . . .
. . . .” § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat (2011). . . .
. . . sure, “a distinction between reputation evidence and evidence of specific acts admitted under section 90.404 . . . trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion.” § 90.404 . . . Pursuant to section 90.404(l)(b), however, “evidence of prior specific acts of violence by the victim . . .
. . . . § 90.404(2)(a). . . .
. . . motion to allow similar fact evidence of “other acts involving child molestation” pursuant to section 90.404 . . . (2)(a) and as child molestation evidence under section 90.404(2)(b)l. and McLean v. . . . The trial court relied on section 90.404(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (2008), to justify admission . . . Section 90.404(2)(a) and (b) state the following: (a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, . . . We find that the collateral act was admissible only under section 90.404(2)(b). . . .
. . . Section 90.404(2)(b)l., Florida Statutes (2010), provides, “In a criminal case in which the defendant . . .
. . . issue is character evidence and, therefore, is inadmissible to prove culpable negligence under section 90.404 . . . While we agree that such evidence is not admissible under section 90.404(1), the evidence in this case . . . Section 90.404(1) provides, "Evidence of a person's character or a trait of character is inadmissible . . .