Williams v. State

626 So. 2d 315, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11237, 1993 WL 461952
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 573 So. 2d 124
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 10, 1993·No. No. 91-03213·Published

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence, and possession of cannabis. He argues that the trial court erred in admitting a videotape made of him while he was in a holding cell after his arrest. We agree. The videotape was not relevant to the charged offenses, it did not contain any incriminatory statements, nor was it proper rebuttal evidence. It failed to prove any fact in issue. See Stano v. State, 473 So.2d 1282 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1093, 106 S.Ct. 869, 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986). The tape only showed the appellant in a rage and his refusal to make any statements to the police. Nothing the appellant said in the tape contradicted his testimony at trial. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

FRANK, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.

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

Williams v. State, 626 So. 2d 315, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11237, 1993 WL 461952 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

626 So. 2d 315 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stano v. State
473 So. 2d 1282 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1985)
McKenna v. Nevada
474 U.S. 1093 (Supreme Court, 1986)