Bolden v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bolden v. State

543 So. 2d 423, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1231, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2768, 1989 WL 51217

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 18, 1989·No. No. 88-1413·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

Bolden was charged with and convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer. The state introduced evidence at trial, over defense objection, that he battered another officer a year before. The purpose of the evidence obviously was to show propensity, contrary to the provisions of section 90.-404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) and Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).

The trial court stated that the. testimony was admitted to establish identity or the absence of mistake or accident. These were not material issues at trial. On appeal, the state argues that the testimony was admissible to show a “pattern of conduct” by Bolden. That is exactly why the evidence was inadmissible. Reversal is required pursuant to Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903, 908 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 556, 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

DANIEL and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COBB, Judge.

Bolden was charged with and convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer. The state introduced evidence at trial, over defense objection, that he battered another officer a year before. The purpose of the evidence obviously was to show propensity, contrary to the provisions of section 90.-404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1987) and Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).

The trial court stated that the. testimony was admitted to establish identity or the absence of mistake or accident. These were not material issues at trial. On appeal, the state argues that the testimony was admissible to show a “pattern of conduct” by Bolden. That is exactly why the evidence was inadmissible. Reversal is required pursuant to Straight v. State, 397 So.2d 903, 908 (Fla.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1022, 102 S.Ct. 556, 70 L.Ed.2d 418 (1981).

REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL.

DANIEL and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.

Bolden v. State, 543 So. 2d 423, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1231, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 2768, 1989 WL 51217 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

543 So. 2d 423 (Bolden v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related