Mills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mills v. State

816 So. 2d 170, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5703, 2002 WL 800922

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 2002

DocketNo. 3D99-3210

StatusPublished

This text of 816 So. 2d 170 (Mills 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

Mills v. State, 816 So. 2d 170, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5703, 2002 WL 800922 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ryan Mills appeals from a judgment of conviction for aggravated battery. We affirm.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the evidence at issue, namely the domestic violence injunction and the arrest warrant issued upon the victim’s report that defendant violated the injunction, was not Williams rule¹ evidence. “Evidence of uncharged crimes which are inseparable from the crime charged, or evidence which is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged, is not Williams rule evidence. It is admissible under section 90.402 [Florida Statutes] because ‘it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which is in issue ... [I]t is necessary to admit the evidence to adequately describe the deed.’ ” Coolen v. State, 696 So.2d 738, 742-43 (Fla.1997) (quoting Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla.1994)). See also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.17 (2000 Edition).

We find no merit in the remaining points on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ryan Mills appeals from a judgment of conviction for aggravated battery. We affirm.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the evidence at issue, namely the domestic violence injunction and the arrest warrant issued upon the victim’s report that defendant violated the injunction, was not Williams rule¹ evidence. “Evidence of uncharged crimes which are inseparable from the crime charged, or evidence which is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged, is not Williams rule evidence. It is admissible under section 90.402 [Florida Statutes] because ‘it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which is in issue ... [I]t is necessary to admit the evidence to adequately describe the deed.’ ” Coolen v. State, 696 So.2d 738, 742-43 (Fla.1997) (quoting Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla.1994)). See also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.17 (2000 Edition).

We find no merit in the remaining points on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

816 So. 2d 170, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 5703, 2002 WL 800922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack