DEBBIE O'FLAHERTY-LEWIS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
230 So. 3d 15
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim (a married doctor) met appellant on an extramarital-affairs website, had sex, then declined further contact and expressed guilt.
- Appellant obtained and texted the doctor his identifying information (name, address, family details) and repeatedly threatened to tell his wife unless paid.
- The doctor offered $4,000 (of a demanded $7,000); appellant provided changing account details and accepted money at a staged meeting under Broward County Sheriff's Office (BSO) supervision; BSO arrested appellant after she accepted investigative funds.
- Searches of appellant’s BSO-issued phone, laptop, and car revealed similar materials (a threatening letter and messages) tied to another man (A.D.), internet searches of both men, and matching documents linking the car to the computer.
- The State moved to admit Williams-rule (similar-fact) evidence — the letter and messages involving A.D. — to prove intent; the trial court admitted the evidence; appellant was convicted of extortion and appealed claiming improper admission of Williams-rule evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Williams-rule (similar-fact) evidence to prove intent | State: evidence of a prior, similar scheme (A.D.) is relevant to show intent, plan, and rebut defense that acceptance of money was an innocent gift | Appellant: evidence was prejudicial propensity evidence and should be excluded | Court: Admitted — evidence was relevant to the defendant’s state of mind, showed a common scheme, and probative value outweighed prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959) (approved admission of other-crimes evidence to show plan or pattern)
- Johnson v. State, 112 So.3d 564 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (Williams-rule allows similar-fact evidence to prove motive, intent, plan, or absence of mistake)
- Ricketts v. State, 125 So.3d 194 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (trial court must find relevance and balance probative value against prejudice for collateral-crime evidence)
- Dudley v. State, 634 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (definition of "maliciously" as intentional and without lawful justification in extortion context)
- Manuel v. State, 16 So.3d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (intent usually proved by inference; similar schemes are probative of intent)