Pack v. StatePack v. State
Thе motion for rehearing by appellee is granted in part and it is therefore OR
Appellant asks us to reverse his conviction for third degree murder bеcause much of the evidence introduced against him was in violation of the Williams Rule. After extensive examination of the briefs, the record, and additional rеsearch materials, we conclude that we must grant his request.
The Sarasotа Grand Jury indicted appellant on a charge of first degree murder in the deаth of Hazel Brown. At trial, the state developed its case on the theory of felony murder. The testimony of four witnesses, two bystanders and two companions оf appellant, demonstrated that Mrs. Brown, who was eighty-six years old, was walking home from a store with a bag of groceries in her arms when a car pulled up beside her. Appellant stepped quickly from the car and grabbed Mrs. Brown’s pursе. He then returned to his seat and the car drove off. In the scuffle over her bag, Mrs. Brown fell and was injured. She subsequently died as a result of these injuries.
Appellant tоok the stand and testified in his own behalf. He admitted snatching the purse from Mrs. Brown, but he said that he never touched her and that she was still standing when he got back into the сar.
In addition to the evidence of the crime with which it charged appellant, the state presented evidence of two separate criminal episodes in which appellant was involved. Appellant’s two comрanions, Sharon Kent and Elizabeth Poppell, testified that just prior to the purse snatching incident, appellant had attempted to steal money from an elderly resident of the retirement community where the two girls worked. Elizabeth Poppell and her husband also testified that earlier that same morning, appеllant forged a check which he had found at a laundromat and attempted unsuccessfully to cash it at several banks.
Appellant objected to the introduction of the testimony concerning the retirement center and check cashing incidents, and the trial court overruled his objections. While we have very serious reservations about the injection of the retirement community inсident into the trial, we will not consider it further because we hold that the introduction of evidence of the check cashing incident was error.
We begin our analysis as we do with all similar situations with Williams v. State,
Turning to the case at bar, we find that the introduction of the testimony concerning the check cashing incident was a flagrant violation of the Williams Rule. The only issues to which this evidence could have had any сonceivable relevance were appellant’s charaсter and propensity to commit crimes. Accordingly, the testimony was inadmissible.
It is clear that what we have said mandates a reversal. This is an unfortunate result in light of the fact that the evidence against appellant was so clear. However, we cannot condone prosecutorial overkill. The state may only prosecute a defendant for a crime with which it has charged him. As the court said in Lucas v. State,
In this jurisdiction a citizen accused of committing a crime, no matter how heinous or reprehensible it may be in the eyes of society, is entitled to be informed as to the nature of the charge against him and afforded аn opportunity to prepare his defense prior to being put to trial.