Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

285 So. 2d 670

Docket No. 72-1316.

Summit v. State

Charles Henry SUMMIT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 2, 1973.

Rehearing Denied December 7, 1973.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1973-10-02

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"We hold against the contentions of appellant regarding the testimony of the other girl who at the time or times involved was 10 or 11 years old. Testimony of the latter to the effect that appellant had fondled her in a lewd and lascivious manner was presented by the state to show the character of the deed as to motive, intent and absence of mistake, for which it was relevant and admissible... ."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 381 So. 2d 1146 - Cotita v. State, 503 So. 2d 1347 - Beasley v. State

“"[W]e find the testimony of the victim and her sister regarding prior similar conduct on the part of the defendant with them to show the character of the deed as to motive and intent to be relevant and admissible."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 381 So. 2d 1146 - Cotita v. State, 418 So. 2d 238 - Coler v. State

Applies FL 800 § 800.04

Relies on 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · Talley v. State · 46 So. 2d 173 - Swilley v. Economy Cab Co. of Jacksonville

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-10-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 2001

6 state decisions

501973198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Henry E. Coleman, Key West, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosenblatt, Miami, for appellee.

¶3Before BARKDULL, C.J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5Defendant-appellant was informed against, tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced to ten (10) years imprisonment for lewd and lascivious conduct upon a female child under the age of fourteen (14) [Fla. Stat. § 800.04, F.S.A.].

¶6On appeal one of appellant's contentions is that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence testimony concerning prior sexual offenses with the victim and the victim's sister. We cannot agree.

¶7We find Ross v. State, Fla.App. 1959, 112 So.2d 69 to be controlling. In Ross, this Court, citing Talley v. State, 160 Fla. 593, 36 So.2d 201 and Williams v. State, Fla. 1959, 110 So.2d 654, held that in a prosecution for assault in a lewd and lascivious manner upon a girl under 14 years of age, evidence of similar conduct toward another young girl on a continuing series of occasions, was relevant and admissible to show character of the deed as to motive, intent, and absence of mistake.

¶8Turning to the case sub judice, we find the testimony of the victim and her sister regarding prior similar conduct on the part of the defendant with them to show the character of the deed as to motive and intent to be relevant and admissible. Therefore, we hold the trial court to be correct in denying defendant's motion for mistrial on the grounds that the above testimony was admitted improperly.

¶9*671 On appeal, defendant-appellant additionally argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. We disagree.

¶10Upon a review of the evidence, we conclude that it was sufficient to support the judgment. See Giuliano v. State, Fla. 1950, 46 So.2d 182.

¶11We also have considered appellant's remaining points on appeal and find them to be without merit.

¶12Accordingly, the judgment appealed must be and hereby is affirmed.

¶13Affirmed.

/285/so2d/670 · .json · Public domain