Shively v. StateShively v. State
In this appeal, Mark Shively argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence showing that a third party witness saw him french-kissing the victim and that another witness saw him standing nakеd,
The french-kissing incident led to the victim‘s disclosure to her mоther and step-father that she had been sexually molested by Shively. Evidence necessary to describe the manner in which a criminal offense took place or how it came to light is generally admissible as relevant еvidence even though it might otherwise be objectionаble as prior bad act evidence becausе it is “inextricably intertwined” with the underlying crime. Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005, 115 S.Ct. 1317, 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995); Platt v. State, 551 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Tumulty v. State, 489 So.2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), rev. denied, 496 So.2d 144 (1986). The state would have been unreasonably hampered in explaining to the jury how the charged crime came to light without the steр-father‘s testimony describing the events that led to the victim‘s disclosure of molestation.
Shively also asserts that the testimony of the victim‘s brother that he saw Shively naked in the prеsence of the victim was unfairly prejudicial and improperly introduced because the defense was not given advance notice of the state‘s plan tо introduce evidence of this prior bad act. However, it appears that this incident was known to Shively‘s counsel before trial, and, like the french-kissing incident, it could hаve been the subject of a motion in limine. We note further that a minor, in a familial setting, observing an adult relative nude, without more, does not necessarily constitute eithеr a bad, perverse or illegal act.
Shively alternаtively argues that even if the naked incident evidence was not a prior bad act, the prosecutor improperly used the incident as “prior bad act evidеnce” by suggesting in closing argument that the nude encounter “сorroborates the fact that the defendant was еngaged in unconsensual sexual acts with the victim.” We disagrеe with that characterization of the argument. The prosecutor recounted this testimony in closing argument рrimarily to fortify the theory that Shively, as part of his plan оf being sexually involved with the victim, had set up circumstancеs where he and the victim would be alone in the family homе. In addition, the brother‘s disclosure of the nudity incident was alsо one of the events which led to the discovery of the crime and Shively‘s arrest, and was therefore admissible as relevant evidence. See, Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1005, 115 S.Ct. 1317, 131 L.Ed.2d 198 (1995).
The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.