WILLIAMS v. STATE (2019)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Richard WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-217

Decided: April 03, 2019

Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Natasha Baker-Bradley, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and G. Raemy Charest-Turken, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Affirmed. See § 90.402, Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing: “All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law”); § 90.403, Fla. Stat. (2017) (providing: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence”); Heath v. State, 648 So.2d 660, 664 (Fla. 1994) (noting that a “trial court has broad discretion in determining the relevance of evidence and such determination will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion”); Knight v. State, 15 So.3d 936, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (observing that where reasonable trial judges might well disagree on whether certain evidence should have been admitted or excluded at trial, no abuse of discretion has been shown).

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Out of date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