Tripoli v. State, 50 So. 3d 776

Tripoli appeals a judgment and sentence for sexual battery on a child under twelve and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under twelve.
The state’s evidence showed the offenses occurred at the school where KH, eight years old, was enrolled and Tripoli volunteered as a reading tutor.
KH testified that Tripoli partially lowered her pants and touched her private area, including digital penetration, during tutoring over roughly four months.
There was no corroborating physical or scientific evidence linking KH to the crimes.
The State presented Gooch’s testimony about Tripoli’s interactions with another student two school years earlier, which the defense objected to as irrelevant and prejudicial collateral Act evidence.
The trial court admitted Gooch’s testimony under Williams rule analysis and later the court denied Williams rule objection, leading to an appeal that the evidence was improper collateral act evidence and prejudicial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the collateral acts evidence was admissible	Gooch’s testimony was not Williams rule or necessary; it unfairly inflamed jurors	Gooch’s testimony showed Tripoli’s propensity and was not probative of charged crimes	No; admission was harmful and reversible

Zerbe v. State, 944 So.2d 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (abuse of discretion limits collateral evidence rules)
LaMarca v. State, 785 So.2d 1209 (Fla.2001) (restricts collateral evidence under 90.404(2)(a) and 90.402)
Nardone v. State, 798 So.2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (limits on admissibility of collateral acts)
Griffin v. State, 827 So.2d 1098 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (impeachment by contradiction admissibility requirements)
Williams v. State, 621 So.2d 413 (Fla.1993) (collateral acts admissible only to light material issue, not to show bad character)
DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986) (harmless error standard in criminal cases)