Two Williams Rule cases for the defense:
Berube, 34 FLW 436, 2nd DCA, Williams rule testimony was not similar or bear any logical relationship to any material aspect of the crime for which the defendant was being tried for. harmful error. state proof did not exclude the possibility that husband or unknown third person had actually strangled the victim, testimony had substantial effect on the jury and the prosecutor emphasized when he argued testimony of the rape victim and the def's encountered in the tried case showed that the def was the killer
Fike, 34 FLW 457, 5th DCA, evidence of prior acts as not sufficiently similar to charged act though not preserved for appellate review was fundamental error. charged offense of sexual battery on def's daughter and sexual molestation of def's ex-wife younger brother not sufficiently similar, other than occurred in familial context. no similarity between the two offenses, no physical evidence to support her version of events, admission of collateral crimes were fundamental error
The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley, P.A.