Tommy Allen KROLL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Florida District Court of Appeal
· July 20, 2017 · Docket CASE NO. 1D16-2347
221 So. 3d 1291
Syllabus
Tommy Allen KROLL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. CASE NO. 1D16-2347 District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. Opinion filed July 20, 2017 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Kaitlin Weiss and Virginia Harris, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Full Opinion (837 characters)
WOLF, J. Appellant challenges his convictions for burglary of an occupied dwelling and grand theft. We agree with appellant that the trial court erred in admitting Williams Rule evidence that he committed a burglary of a different residence because that evidence became a feature of the trial. See Cannon v. State, 51 So.3d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We also accept the State’s concession that the Williams Rule evidence should not have been admitted because the facts of the collateral crime and the underlying crime were not sufficiently similar, and the points of similarity did not have a special character, nor were they so unusual as to point to appellant. See Drake v. State, 400 So.2d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 1981). The error in admitting the Williams Rule evidence was not harmless. Thus, we REVERSE. ROWE and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
Source: Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School). This page is informational and is not legal advice.