State v. Barber
This text of 783 So. 2d 293 (State v. Barber) 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.
Opinion
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Ann Elliott BARBER, Respondent.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Phillips, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney Generals, Daytona Beach, for Petitioner.
Gregory W. Eisenmenger, Robert R. Berry of Eisenmenger & Berry, P.A., Melbourne, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The State petitions for certiorari review of an order suppressing Williams rule evidence. See Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), codified at Fla. Stat. § 90.404(2) (1999). We have jurisdiction. See State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250, 253 (Fla.1988); see also Richardson v. State, 706 So.2d 1349 (Fla.1998); State v. Smith, 586 So.2d 1237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
We grant the petition, quash the order excluding evidence of the collateral offense involving Baby Devin, and remand for further proceedings in light of our decision in Barber v. State, 781 So.2d 425 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
WRIT GRANTED.
COBB, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
783 So. 2d 293, 2001 WL 256043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barber-fladistctapp-2001.