Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pastor v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See id. at 363; Pastor v. State, 792 So. 2d 627, 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). | 1 | 1 |
DeLuise v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Similar-fact evidence, or Williams rule evidence, is “admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.” DeLuise v. State, 72 So. 3d 248, 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat.). | 1 | 1 |
Davidow v. Stategreen1 sentence2024“The standard of review for the admission of Williams rule evidence is abuse of discretion.” Ricketts v. State, 125 So. 3d 194, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Evans v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 69-70 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (holding Williams rule evidence relevant to eliminate the possibility of accident and show intent when defendant “claimed prior to trial that [victim] had injured herself by falling from the couch,”, even .though defendant did not raise accident as a defense at trial); Evans, 693 So.2d at 1102 (adopting the Court’s “sound reasoning” in Estelle); see also Moore v. State, 78 So.3d 46, 49-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (affirming the admission of Williams rule evidence because it was apparent from defendant’s pretrial sta | 1 | 1 |
Estelle v. McGuiregreen2 sentences2017See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 69-70 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (holding Williams rule evidence relevant to eliminate the possibility of accident and show intent when defendant “claimed prior to trial that [victim] had injured herself by falling from the couch,”, even .though defendant did not raise accident as a defense at trial); Evans, 693 So.2d at 1102 (adopting the Court’s “sound reasoning” in Estelle); see also Moore v. State, 78 So.3d 46, 49-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (affirming the admission of Williams rule evidence because it was apparent from defendant’s pretrial sta 2017See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 69-70 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (holding Williams rule evidence relevant to eliminate the possibility of accident and show intent when defendant “claimed prior to trial that [victim] had injured herself by falling from the couch,”, even .though defendant did not raise accident as a defense at trial); Evans, 693 So.2d at 1102 (adopting the Court’s “sound reasoning” in Estelle); see also Moore v. State, 78 So.3d 46, 49-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (affirming the admission of Williams rule evidence because it was apparent from defendant’s pretrial sta | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 69-70 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991) (holding Williams rule evidence relevant to eliminate the possibility of accident and show intent when defendant “claimed prior to trial that [victim] had injured herself by falling from the couch,”, even .though defendant did not raise accident as a defense at trial); Evans, 693 So.2d at 1102 (adopting the Court’s “sound reasoning” in Estelle); see also Moore v. State, 78 So.3d 46, 49-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (affirming the admission of Williams rule evidence because it was apparent from defendant’s pretrial sta | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Johnson v. State, 110 So.3d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (affirming the admission of Williams rule evidence where each robbery was committed at a similar location in a similar way, and within close temporal proximity). | 1 | 1 |
Santiago v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Santiago v. State, 70 So.3d 720, 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Tripoli v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Tripoli v. State, 50 So.3d 776, 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Stav v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Stav v. State, 860 So.2d 478, 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Geldreich v. State, 763 So.2d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Geldreich v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Stav v. State, 860 So.2d 478, 480 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Geldreich v. State, 763 So.2d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Mims v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Mims, 872 So.2d at 456 . | 1 | 1 |
Randolph v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Randolph v. State, 463 So.2d 186, 189 (Fla.1984) (corroboration through modus operandi evidence was necessary to support State's chief witness to crime, a self-declared prostitute); Ashley v. State, 265 So.2d 685, 692-94 (Fla. 1972) (affirming admission of collateral crime evidence to prove identity, among other material facts, even though eyewitness testimony, the defendant's confession, and ballistics evidence linked accused to crime for which he was on trial). [10] For example, photos were introduced to show tire print evidence, a recurrent positioning of the bodies upon disposal, the t | 1 | 1 |
Ashley v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Randolph v. State, 463 So.2d 186, 189 (Fla.1984) (corroboration through modus operandi evidence was necessary to support State's chief witness to crime, a self-declared prostitute); Ashley v. State, 265 So.2d 685, 692-94 (Fla. 1972) (affirming admission of collateral crime evidence to prove identity, among other material facts, even though eyewitness testimony, the defendant's confession, and ballistics evidence linked accused to crime for which he was on trial). [10] For example, photos were introduced to show tire print evidence, a recurrent positioning of the bodies upon disposal, the t | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959). | 1 | 1 |
Duncan v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Propensity is an improper basis for the admission of Williams rule evidence. § 90.404(2)(a); Heuring, 513 So.2d 122 ; Thomas, 599 So.2d 158 ; Duncan v. State, 291 So.2d 241, 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Walker
green
1 sentence2008Walker claims that his appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise on direct appeal: (1) this Court's reversal of the trial court's suppression order, State v. Walker, 852 So.2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); (2) the trial court's admission of Williams rule evidence; [1] (3) the trial court's failure to give limiting or cautionary instructions to the jury regarding the admission of Williams rule evidence; and (4) trial counsel's failure to object to the jury instructions given by the trial court on justifiable and excusable homicide. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Tannihill v. State
green
1 sentence2008By contrast, the Fourth District in Tannihill v. State, 912 So.2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), affirmed the admission of Williams rule evidence concerning a previous drug sale, offered to rebut the defendant's claim that he was an innocent bystander to the charged drug sale. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Thomas v. State
green
1 sentence1999Propensity is an improper basis for the admission of Williams rule evidence. § 90.404(2)(a); Heuring, 513 So.2d 122 ; Thomas, 599 So.2d 158 ; Duncan v. State, 291 So.2d 241, 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Fundora
green
1 sentence1999Propensity is an improper basis for the admission of Williams rule evidence. § 90.404(2)(a); Heuring, 513 So.2d 122 ; Thomas, 599 So.2d 158 ; Duncan v. State, 291 So.2d 241, 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.