Euline v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Euline v. State

577 So. 2d 598, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1337, 1991 WL 18277

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 19, 1991

DocketNo. 89-584

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 577 So. 2d 598 (Euline v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Euline v. State, 577 So. 2d 598, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1337, 1991 WL 18277 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The defendant Euline was charged with and convicted of two sexual offenses involving the digital vaginal and anal penetration of a twelve year old girlfriend of [599]*599his daughter while she was visiting in the defendant’s home. At the trial, the state was permitted to present testimony of the thirteen year old daughter herself that, a few weeks after the incident involved in the case, Euline had engaged in improper conduct by having the daughter rub her uncovered genital area against his back.

We reverse for a new trial because this “other offense” testimony was not sufficiently similar to the crimes charged to permit its introduction either under the rule of 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), or as corroborative testimony under Heuring v. State, 513 So.2d 122 (Fla.1987). See Heuring, 513 So.2d at 125 (“The state argues that the molestations of these five children were admissible as similar fact evidence under Williams. The trial court, however, correctly excluded direct evidence of these molestations since they were not sufficiently similar to the charged offenses.”); Fennelly & Watson, Logical Logos/Legal Relevancy: A Look at the Williams Rule in Florida, Fla.Bar J., Nov. 1987 at 57, 59 (“Admission of such [corroborative] evidence should, however, be contingent upon a showing of unique similarity so as to ensure its reliability and to ensure that the probative value will outweigh prejudicial effect to the defendant.”).

Reversed.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The defendant Euline was charged with and convicted of two sexual offenses involving the digital vaginal and anal penetration of a twelve year old girlfriend of [599]*599his daughter while she was visiting in the defendant’s home. At the trial, the state was permitted to present testimony of the thirteen year old daughter herself that, a few weeks after the incident involved in the case, Euline had engaged in improper conduct by having the daughter rub her uncovered genital area against his back.

We reverse for a new trial because this “other offense” testimony was not sufficiently similar to the crimes charged to permit its introduction either under the rule of 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), or as corroborative testimony under Heuring v. State, 513 So.2d 122 (Fla.1987). See Heuring, 513 So.2d at 125 (“The state argues that the molestations of these five children were admissible as similar fact evidence under Williams. The trial court, however, correctly excluded direct evidence of these molestations since they were not sufficiently similar to the charged offenses.”); Fennelly & Watson, Logical Logos/Legal Relevancy: A Look at the Williams Rule in Florida, Fla.Bar J., Nov. 1987 at 57, 59 (“Admission of such [corroborative] evidence should, however, be contingent upon a showing of unique similarity so as to ensure its reliability and to ensure that the probative value will outweigh prejudicial effect to the defendant.”).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 So. 2d 598, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1337, 1991 WL 18277, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/euline-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack