Manuel Alexandra Peralta- Morales v. State of Florida
143 So. 3d 483
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation of his six-year-old daughter after she testified about sexual contact during a summer visit.
- During the investigation, appellant gave a recorded statement admitting prior sexual contact with his children (including touching and alleged family sexual activity) while married to the mother.
- The State played appellant’s recorded statement at trial; the court gave a limiting instruction before admission.
- Appellant objected to admission of the statement as collateral crime evidence and challenged its relevance, similarity, and proof standard.
- The trial court admitted the statement under Fla. Stat. § 90.404(2)(b) and gave a cautionary instruction; appellant also moved for a mistrial based on child hearsay references, which was denied.
- On appeal, the First DCA affirmed, rejecting appellant’s arguments about admissibility and upholding the mistrial denial without extended discussion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of defendant’s prior admissions as collateral crimes | Admission was relevant to prove consciousness of guilt and admissible under § 90.404(2)(b) | Collateral acts were irrelevant, dissimilar, and not proven by clear and convincing evidence | Admitted: court found defendant’s statements relevant as admissions and admissible under § 90.404(2)(b) (clear-and-convincing proof not required for admission as party-opponent) |
| Whether evidence was unduly prejudicial under § 90.403 | Probative value outweighed prejudice because similarities (home, young daughters, familial context) linked acts | Evidence was unfairly prejudicial and would become a feature of trial | No abuse of discretion: court weighed § 90.403 factors (similar victims, location, timing, intervening circumstances, cautionary instruction) and found probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Requirement of similarity between charged and collateral acts | Admitted evidence must be similar to charged offense to be admissible | Collateral acts need not mirror charged act when offered under § 90.404(2)(b) | Held that similarity is not strictly required under § 90.404(2)(b); relevant similarities existed (familial context, victims, home) |
| Motion for mistrial due to repeated references to inadmissible child hearsay | References warranted mistrial because they prejudiced the jury | Trial court’s curative measures and rulings sufficed; no mistrial needed | Denial affirmed (court affirmed without extended discussion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoefert v. State, 617 So. 2d 1046 (admissions by a party-opponent may be admitted even if they show separate crimes)
- Swafford v. State, 533 So. 2d 270 (discussing admissibility of other crimes evidence)
- Delacruz v. State, 734 So. 2d 1116 (defendant’s implausible explanations may show consciousness of guilt)
- McLean v. State, 934 So. 2d 1248 (§ 90.404(2)(b) evidence still subject to § 90.403 balancing; lists factors for weighing prior molestation evidence)