Randle v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Randle v. State

820 So. 2d 418, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 9435, 2002 WL 1433741

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-1021

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 820 So. 2d 418 (Randle 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

Randle v. State, 820 So. 2d 418, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 9435, 2002 WL 1433741 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinions

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Randle appeals from his conviction after a jury trial for possession of narcotics with intent to sell on July 4, 2000. Rejecting his primary point for reversal, we conclude that evidence that the police officer involved in the arrest had observed him committing a similar offense on June 28, 2000, was properly admitted, even under the Williams Rule, to counter the defendant’s contention that the officer had framed him in this case by lying about his participation in the crime and simultaneously letting the person who had actually committed it go. Plainly, the jury was entitled to disbelieve that defense because of the inherent incredibility of the claim that the officers would permit him to escape for something he did do and punish him for something he did not. § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000);¹ see Robertson v. State, 780 So.2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(previous offense admissible to counter defense claim of accident), review granted, 799 So.2d 219 (Fla.2001); see also Geske v. State, 770 So.2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(testimony of other offense ad[419]*419missible to establish circumstances leading to arrest). See generally, Consalvo v. State, 697 So.2d 805 (Fla.1996)(appropriate for prosecution to anticipate defense reasonably raised by evidence), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1109, 118 S.Ct. 1681, 140 L.Ed.2d 819 (1998).

The appellant’s remaining point presents no reversible’error.

Affirmed.

FLETCHER, J., concurs.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Randle appeals from his conviction after a jury trial for possession of narcotics with intent to sell on July 4, 2000. Rejecting his primary point for reversal, we conclude that evidence that the police officer involved in the arrest had observed him committing a similar offense on June 28, 2000, was properly admitted, even under the Williams Rule, to counter the defendant’s contention that the officer had framed him in this case by lying about his participation in the crime and simultaneously letting the person who had actually committed it go. Plainly, the jury was entitled to disbelieve that defense because of the inherent incredibility of the claim that the officers would permit him to escape for something he did do and punish him for something he did not. § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2000);¹ see Robertson v. State, 780 So.2d 106 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(previous offense admissible to counter defense claim of accident), review granted, 799 So.2d 219 (Fla.2001); see also Geske v. State, 770 So.2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)(testimony of other offense ad[419]*419missible to establish circumstances leading to arrest). See generally, Consalvo v. State, 697 So.2d 805 (Fla.1996)(appropriate for prosecution to anticipate defense reasonably raised by evidence), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1109, 118 S.Ct. 1681, 140 L.Ed.2d 819 (1998).

The appellant’s remaining point presents no reversible’error.

Affirmed.

FLETCHER, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

820 So. 2d 418, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 9435, 2002 WL 1433741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randle-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack