Williams v. State
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 14944
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Williams was convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm and shooting into a building; sentences were life and 15 years.
- The victim, a young woman, was shot by her boyfriend after an argument and after she had called 911 on her cell phone.
- The mother identified Williams as the victim's boyfriend; a statement by the mother to police was admitted as an excited utterance over objection.
- Defense challenged cross-examination limits concerning a detective and information from a CAD report about a man matching the victim's ex-husband.
- The crime-scene investigator offered lay opinions about the victim's cell phone data; the court admitted the testimony.
- The court gave a curative instruction during closing when defense counsel suggested another male friend may be responsible; the instruction stated there was no evidence of other guys.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excited utterance admissibility | State argues reliability due to startling event. | Williams contends lack of spontaneity voids exception. | Admissible excited utterance. |
| Cross-examination limitation | Defendant was improperly prevented from obtaining relevant CAD info. | Limitations were proper as hearsay. | Limitation proper; not reversible error. |
| CSI lay opinion on cell phone | CSI opinions about the phone were helpful to causation and context. | Opinions were beyond lay witness capabilities. | CSI testimony admissible as lay opinion. |
| Judicial curative instruction | No improper comment on guilt or weight of evidence. | Instruction was harmless or non-prejudicial. | Improper comment; but harmless in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayward v. State, 24 So. 3d 17 (Fla. 2009) (excited utterance requirements)
- Hudson v. State, 992 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 2008) (requirements for excited utterance)
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982) (cross-examination right limits)
- Fino v. Nodine, 646 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (lay witness opinion admissibility)
- Crews v. Warren, 157 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963) (limits on judge's summation/images of evidence)
- DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless error standard)
- Erickson v. State, 565 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (harmless error analysis)
- Jacques v. State, 883 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (commentary on weight of evidence improper)