Call us now:
People in their own minds create categories of witnesses. For example many would generally assume an ‘innocent bystander’ to be an extremely believable witness since they have no motive in coloring their testimony for or against anyone. The opposite also holds true, that there are some witness types that are extremely suspicious. The law and common sense tell us to really scrutinize the words of an admitted criminal, especially when that criminal is trying to save their own skin and supposedly telling on the ‘true’ culprit.
In a recent case in the 4th DCA – Music v State – the State charged the appellant with burglary while armed, grand theft of a firearm, and attempted first-degree murder for shooting a victim, G.C., with a stolen gun. The charges stemmed from November 24, 2019, when Music (Defendant) and a co-defendant burglarized vehicles, including one belonging to G.C., and stole a firearm. When G.C. confronted the co-defendant during the car burglary, Music allegedly shot G.C. Both Defendant and Co-defendant were masked, but co-defendant pled guilty and testified against Music, and embellished the incident in question by adding that Music and co-defendant had an extensive history of “car hopping” (pulling car door handles until they find unlocked cars then ransacking them for loot.).
The trial court allowed the co-defendant to testify about prior burglaries (car hopping incidents), despite the appellant’s objection that such testimony was prejudicial. The State argued the testimony was necessary to establish motive, intent, and identity. The co-defendant described numerous burglaries they committed together, often wearing masks and gloves. On the night of the crime, he confirmed seeing the appellant shoot G.C. after the confrontation.
Although the co-defendant admitted to lying to law enforcement initially, he hoped his testimony would help reduce his charges. Specifically the Court noted: While the prosecution did not make the co-defendant any promises about his sentence in exchange for his testimony, he hoped that his testimony would benefit him regarding the attempted felony murder charge by showing that he did not want a gun to be used. The co defendant also hoped to ultimately be sentenced to time served.
The prosecution presented little additional evidence tying the appellant directly to the crime, as the victim could not identify the shooter, and the gun was only linked to the appellant through the co-defendant’s testimony. Despite this, the jury convicted the appellant on all charges. The trial court sentenced the appellant to life in prison.
Williams Rule Evidence
Normally evidence can’t be admitted against a Defendant regarding other uncharged crimes during a criminal trial. But such evidence can be allowed under a special circumstance called ‘Williams Rule Evidence’, which permits evidence of other crimes to prove identity, motive, or intent. The lower Court here erred by admitting the Co-defendants testimony because there was no “signature element” to the evidence (meaning the acts were somehow so unique that they establish the identity of the perpetrator through their nature). In this case, the prior burglaries were typical, involving car hopping with masks and gloves—acts not unique to the appellant.
And the Court further erred by not ensuring that the prior crimes actually occurred. Evidence like this must be determined to have ACTUALLY OCCURRED before it is admitted. This must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence here is just the Co-defendant’s story! Moreover, no supporting police reports or documented investigations were presented. These alleged 40-50 burglaries could have been made up out of whole cloth! As the Court explained this could have seriously bad implications for the future: To allow a co-defendant to testify that a defendant participated in other unknown crimes of the same nature prevents a defendant from adequately preparing to defend against such accusations. It could prompt co-defendants to give testimony impossible to disprove and highly prejudicial to the defendant.
Overly Prejudicial
The number of prior burglaries was also highly prejudicial. The co-defendant’s statement that they had committed up to fifty burglaries painted the appellant as a serial offender, which could unduly sway the jury. The appellant contends that the co-defendant could have described the night’s events without referencing the prior crimes, and that the admission of this evidence violated the principle that collateral crime evidence must be both relevant and not overly prejudicial. Consequently, the appellant argues that the court should have excluded the co-defendant’s testimony about the prior burglaries, as it was more prejudicial than probative.
Inextricably Intertwined
The State tried to stop the case from being reversed by arguing that the evidence was “inextricably intertwined” evidence. According to section 90.402 of the Florida Statutes (2023), relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise prohibited by law, and evidence is considered inextricably intertwined when it is necessary to (1) adequately describe the deed, (2) provide an intelligent account of the charged crime(s), (3) establish the entire context of the crime(s), or (4) describe the events leading up to the crime(s).
However, in this case, the prior burglaries were not necessary to describe the charged offense or explain the events leading up to it. Thus, the appellant argues, the prior burglaries should not have been admitted as evidence of inextricably intertwined crimes. This further supports the argument that the court erred in allowing this testimony, as it did not meet the requirements for such evidence to be admissible.
Luckily Mr. Music will get another chance to dispute the evidence against him, and this time the State won’t be allowed to have the unprovable inflammatory stories of the cooperating co-defendant used to sway the jury. Everyone is entitled to a dispassionate, reasoned weighing of their case to an impartial jury, and here Mr. Music was deprived of his chance at fairness because a cooperating co-defendant, who admitted lying to the police, was allowed to spin yarns in front of a crowd against the principles controlled by the rules of evidence and our constitution.
Music v State – 4D2024-0018 – 12/4/2024 4th DCA Indian river county
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
If you’re accused of any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.