reverse Williams rule in Florida

2020See State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892, 894 (Fla. 1990) (explaining that under the reverse Williams rule, a defendant may introduce evidence that another 8.

2018And because binding supreme court precedent requires us to apply the same standard to the reverse Williams rule evidence here, see Savino, 567 So. 2d at 894 (“[W]e disagree that the degree of similarity of such crimes to be relevant should be modified when identity is sought to be proved, even though it is less likely that prejudice would occur when evidence of other crimes is sought to be introduced by a defendant.”), we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the proffered testimony. 4 4 Below, defense counsel argued the proffered evidence was relevant to prove R

2016See Rivera v. State, 561 So.2d 536 (Fla.1990), and State v. Savino, 567 So.2d 892 (Fla.1990). .

2006As the supreme court stated in McLin v. State, 827 So.2d 948 , 957 n. 7 (Fla.2002) (citing Rivera, 561 So.2d at 539 ): "Reverse Williams rule evidence permits the defendant to introduce evidence of prior similar crimes involving another person, if a proper predicate is laid, to show the defendant's innocence by proof of the guilt of another." If reverse Williams rule evidence is character evidence, it is usually evidence of the character of some third party who is not involved in the lawsuit.

2026Of note, however, the phrases “unusual nature,” “special character,” and “so unusual” do not appear in the actual text of section 90.404. 2 B “‘Reverse Williams rule’ evidence is evidence of a crime committed by another person that a defendant offers to show his or her innocence of the instant crime.” McDuffie v. State, 970 So. 2d 312 , 323 n.2 (Fla. 2007).

2018See Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208, 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (noting that the “upshot” of Williams rule evidence “is that an accused may show his innocence 6 by proof tending to show another person’s guilt”); see also McDuffie, 970 So. 2d at 323 n.2 (“‘Reverse Williams rule’ evidence is evidence of a crime committed by another person that a defendant offers to show his or her innocence of the instant crime.”).

2019See Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 909 (Fla. 2002).

2017See, e.g., Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (recognizing that the “tipsy coachman” doctrine is a longstanding principle of appellate law that allows an appellate court to affirm a trial court that reaches the right result but for the. wrong reason so long as , there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record).

2018See Finney v. State, 660 So. 2d 674, 681-82 (Fla. 1995) (“Overall similarity between the facts of the two offenses generally is necessary before the other crime evidence is considered relevant to the issue of identity.

2009See, e.g., Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050, 1054 (Fla.2000) (“Having failed to demonstrate the relevancy of the sought-after testimony by way of proffer, Trease cannot now claim error.”) (citing Finney v. State, 660 So.2d 674, 684 (Fla.1995)) (“Without a proffer it is impossible for the appellate court to determine whether the trial court’s ruling was erroneous and if erroneous what effect the error may have had on the result.”); Lucas v. State, 568 So.2d 18, 22 (Fla.1990) (holding that a party’s failure to proffer what a witness would have said on cross-examination renders an alleged trial co

2009White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla.2002) (quoting State v. Savino, 567 So.2d 892, 894 (Fla.1990)).

2007White v. State, 817 So.2d 799, 806 (Fla.2002) (quoting State v. Savino, 567 So.2d 892, 894 (Fla.1990)).

2014"Collateral crimes evidence includes similar fact evidence, which is governed by section 90.404, Florida Statutes, and is commonly referred to as ‘Williams rule evidence.’ ” Pulcini v. State, 41 So.3d 338, 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959)). " 'Reverse Williams rule’ evidence” refers to evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts by a person other than the defendant “that a defendant offers to show his or her innocence of the instant crime.” McDuffie v. State, 970 So.2d 312 , 323 n. 2 (Fla.2007) (citation omitted). . 59 So.3d 1092 (Fla.2011). .

2010Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654, 658-63 (Fla.1959); see also § 90.404(2), Fla. Stat. (2008); Simpson v. State, 3 So.3d 1135 , 1145 n. 6 (Fla.2009) (" 'Reverse Williams rule’ evidence is evidence of a crime committed by another person that a defendant offers to show his or her innocence of the instant crime.”).

2026Like other evidence admitted to demonstrate identity, the defendant must show a “close similarity of facts, a unique or ‘fingerprint’ type of information” for reverse 2 Our analysis does not address what may be termed “dissimilar fact evidence of other crimes.” While section 90.404(2)(a) creates “a special limitation governing the admissibility of similar fact evidence[,]” it does not apply to “evidence of a defendant’s collateral bad acts [that] bears no logical resemblance to the crime for which the defendant is being tried[.]” Sexton v. State, 697 So. 2d 833, 837 (Fla. 1997).

2020This rule “allows the State to introduce similar fact evidence of other crimes or acts by the defendant to prove a relevant matter in the - 15 - prosecution of the crimes for which he or she is on trial.” Newby v. State, 272 So. 3d 862, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019).

2019Our court and others have held, however, "that a trial court has somewhat less discretion in deciding whether to exclude a defendant's reverse Williams rule evidence than in deciding whether to introduce the State's Williams rule evidence." Palazzolo v. State, 754 So. 2d 731, 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Edwards v. State, 857 So. 2d 911, 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ("As the Florida Supreme Court has recognized, reverse Williams rule evidence has a lower potential for prejudice to the State than standard contrast to the Florida courts, "many courts relax the standard for admitting this kind of e

2019Our court and others have held, however, "that a trial court has somewhat less discretion in deciding whether to exclude a defendant's reverse Williams rule evidence than in deciding whether to introduce the State's Williams rule evidence." Palazzolo v. State, 754 So. 2d 731, 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Edwards v. State, 857 So. 2d 911, 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) ("As the Florida Supreme Court has recognized, reverse Williams rule evidence has a lower potential for prejudice to the State than standard contrast to the Florida courts, "many courts relax the standard for admitting this kind of e

2019For that reason, the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting Mr. Newby from introducing that evidence under the reverse Williams rule here.8 The Trial Court's Error Was Not Harmless Beyond A Reasonable Doubt The State argues that any error in precluding evidence of D.W.'s attack was harmless because "Mr. Newby was still able to argue that another person committed burglary." To prevail on this argument, the State must "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or, alternatively stated, that there is no reasonable possibility that the

2018See Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208, 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (noting that the “upshot” of Williams rule evidence “is that an accused may show his innocence 6 by proof tending to show another person’s guilt”); see also McDuffie, 970 So. 2d at 323 n.2 (“‘Reverse Williams rule’ evidence is evidence of a crime committed by another person that a defendant offers to show his or her innocence of the instant crime.”).

2014"Collateral crimes evidence includes similar fact evidence, which is governed by section 90.404, Florida Statutes, and is commonly referred to as ‘Williams rule evidence.’ ” Pulcini v. State, 41 So.3d 338, 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959)). " 'Reverse Williams rule’ evidence” refers to evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts by a person other than the defendant “that a defendant offers to show his or her innocence of the instant crime.” McDuffie v. State, 970 So.2d 312 , 323 n. 2 (Fla.2007) (citation omitted). . 59 So.3d 1092 (Fla.2011). .

2010If a defendant’s purpose is to shift suspicion from himself to another person, evidence of past criminal conduct of that other person should be of such nature that it would be admissible if that person were on trial for the present offense.” Traina v. State, 657 So.2d 1227, 1228-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (quoting Savino, 567 So.2d at 894 (citations omitted)); see also *494 Simpson, 3 So.3d at 1145 n. 6 (stating the reverse Williams rule test as presented in Traína and Savino).

2009See, e.g., Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050, 1054 (Fla.2000) (“Having failed to demonstrate the relevancy of the sought-after testimony by way of proffer, Trease cannot now claim error.”) (citing Finney v. State, 660 So.2d 674, 684 (Fla.1995)) (“Without a proffer it is impossible for the appellate court to determine whether the trial court’s ruling was erroneous and if erroneous what effect the error may have had on the result.”); Lucas v. State, 568 So.2d 18, 22 (Fla.1990) (holding that a party’s failure to proffer what a witness would have said on cross-examination renders an alleged trial co

2009See, e.g., Trease v. State, 768 So.2d 1050, 1054 (Fla.2000) (“Having failed to demonstrate the relevancy of the sought-after testimony by way of proffer, Trease cannot now claim error.”) (citing Finney v. State, 660 So.2d 674, 684 (Fla.1995)) (“Without a proffer it is impossible for the appellate court to determine whether the trial court’s ruling was erroneous and if erroneous what effect the error may have had on the result.”); Lucas v. State, 568 So.2d 18, 22 (Fla.1990) (holding that a party’s failure to proffer what a witness would have said on cross-examination renders an alleged trial co

2006In Rivera v. State, 561 So.2d 536, 539 (Fla.1990), the supreme court explained: Although the question of the admissibility of "reverse Williams Rule" evidence by a defendant appears to be one of first impression for this Court, the Third District in Moreno v. State, 418 So.2d 1223, 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), has permitted it on the basis that an accused may show his or her innocence by proof of the guilt *757 of another.

2002Cf. Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028, 1033-34 (Fla.2000) (setting forth standard of appellate review following an evidentiary hearing on motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims that affords deference to findings of fact based on competent substantial evidence and independently reviews deficiency and prejudice as mixed questions of law and fact). [5] This analysis is consistent with our recent opinion in Ford v. State, 825 So.2d 358 (Fla.2002), where we held that "the Fifth District erred in resolving as a matter of law the factual issue of whether counsel's actions were tacti

1998Instead, the judge instructed the jury that a "mitigating circumstance need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt ... [and that if] you are reasonably convinced that a mitigating circumstance exists, you may consider it as established." Likewise, claim (17) is procedurally barred because the reverse Williams rule subclaim was unsuccessfully argued by Rivera on direct appeal, Maharaj v. State, 684 So.2d 726, 728 (Fla.1996) (reasoning "it is inappropriate to use a collateral attack to relitigate an issue previously raised on appeal"), while the subclaim regarding an informant's "apparently mis