MILLS v. STATE (2002)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Ryan R. MILLS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D99-3210.

Decided: May 01, 2002

Before JORGENSON, LEVY, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Joseph Cartolano and Valerie Jonas, Assistant Public Defenders, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Darien M. Doe, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Ryan Mills appeals from a judgment of conviction for aggravated battery. We affirm.

Contrary to defendant's argument, the evidence at issue, namely the domestic violence injunction and the arrest warrant issued upon the victim's report that defendant violated the injunction, was not Williams rule ¹ evidence. “Evidence of uncharged crimes which are inseparable from the crime charged, or evidence which is inextricably intertwined with the crime charged, is not Williams rule evidence. It is admissible under section 90.402 [Florida Statutes] because ‘it is a relevant and inseparable part of the act which is in issue ․ [I]t is necessary to admit the evidence to adequately describe the deed.’ ” Coolen v. State, 696 So.2d 738, 742-43 (Fla.1997) (quoting Griffin v. State, 639 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla.1994)). See also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.17 (2000 Edition).

We find no merit in the remaining points on appeal.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1. Williams v. State, 117 So.2d 473 (Fla.1960).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network