Relevance Flashcards
Can the state rebut the character trait of the defendant when the defendant offers character evidence pertaining to the witness in his defense?
Contrary to the federal rule, the Florida rule does not allow the prosecution to rebut with the defendant’s character trait when the defendant offers a victim’s character trait. For example, if, in a homicide case, the defendant offers evidence of the victim’s character trait of violence to support a claim of self-defense, the prosecution may not rebut with evidence of the defendant’s character trait for violence. It may only rebut with evidence of victim’s character trait of peacefulness.
What is the Williams rule?
In Florida, similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible under the Williams rule when relevant to prove a material fact in issue like identity, preparation, motive, intent, opportunity, plan, absence of mistake or accident, or knowledge (e.g., MIMIC evidence). A material fact is not at issue simply because it relates to an element of the charged crimes and the defendant has pled not guilty.
Striking similarity standard
“Striking similarity” standard when other act used to establish identity. If the purpose of introducing such evidence is to prove identity, a general similarity will not render the similar act admissible. Instead, there must be “identifiable points of similarity” that establish, when also considering dissimilarities, a “sufficiently unique pattern of criminal activity.
By contrast, if the purpose of introducing such evidence is to prove motive, there is, of course, no requirement that the nature or facts surrounding the other crimes, wrongs, or acts be similar to the charged offense.
The Williams rule and Criminal sexual battery and child molestation.
The Williams rule also applies in criminal cases involving sexual battery and child molestation (but not in other sex offense cases) to allow the admission of evidence of the defendant’s commission of other similar crimes, wrongs, or acts of sexual battery or child molestation. This evidence may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant, but it is inadmissible when relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.
This is unlike FRE 413–415, which permit such acts to be admitted in various types of sex offense cases, criminal and civil, and which permit the evidence to be admitted to show propensity. If such evidence is admitted in Florida, the court must charge the jury on the limited purpose for which the evidence is to be considered.
Notice in Williams rule evidence
At least 10 days before trial, the state must give a defendant notice of its intent to use evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts. This notice must describe the acts the state seeks to admit as evidence with particularity. The court will then hold a hearing to determine the admissibility of the acts. Unlike the federal rule, no notice is required for use of such evidence for impeachment or rebuttal of defendant’s character witnesses.
Burden of proof that other acts are admissible
Florida requires a judicial finding that the other acts are supported by clear and convincing evidence to be admissible.
For a party to meet the clear and convincing standard, the evidence must “be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established.
(Federal requires preponderance of the evidence)
Reverse Williams Rule
Civil as well as criminal defendants may offer evidence of other acts of a third party to at least suggest that the third party, rather than the defendant, committed the crime or tort. Often, this is accomplished by showing that the modus operandi of the third party in committing the other act is strikingly similar to the crime with which the defendant has been charged. Under the Federal Rules, this approach is known as a “reverse 404(b) defense”; Florida refers to it as the “reverse Williams rule.”
Habit evidence
The Florida rule does not mention a person’s habit, but only “the routine practice of an organization,” which, like the federal rule, may be admitted without corroboration and without an eyewitness’s presence.
Florida courts, however, have admitted evidence of a person’s habit under the common-law exception. Evidence of a person’s habit is admissible to corroborate other evidence that shows the habit occurred at a relevant time, but, unlike the federal rule, it is not admissible as direct evidence without corroboration.
