COX V. STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JANUARY TERM, 2004 ERIC LAMONT COX, Appellant, vs. ** ** ** THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. CASE NO. 3D02-755 ** LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 01-3650 ** Opinion filed April 14, 2004. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Judge. Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Douglas J. Glaid, Assistant Attorney General, and Venus Zilieris, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee. Before GODERICH, GREEN, and WELLS, JJ. GODERICH, Judge. The defendant, Eric Lamont Cox, appeals from his convictions and sentences. We affirm. The defendant was charged with burglary with assault or battery; battery on a person sixty-five years of age or older; and strong arm robbery. Prior to trial, the State filed a motion to rely on Williams1 rule evidence to prove identity. Specifically, the State sought to introduce a subsequent robbery that the defendant had committed. At the collateral Williams rule hearing, the victims of robbery and the robbery at issue testified. both the The trial court ruled that the collateral robbery was admissible because the testimonies of both victims were virtually identical. Following a trial where the collateral crime was admitted, the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. The defendant contends that the This appeal follows. trial discretion by admitting the collateral crime. court abused its We disagree. Pursuant to section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2000), [s]imilar fact evidence of other crimes . . . is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, such as proof of . . . identity . . ., but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. In order to introduce a collateral crime to establish identity, the collateral crime and the crime at issue must share some unique features suggesting the same perpetrator. 1 Black v. State, 630 So. 2d 609, Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847 (1959). 2 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), review denied, 639 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 1994); see also Williams v. State, 662 So. 1995)( Proper Williams rule obvious telling similarities and evidence 2d is to 419 that the (Fla. which crime 3d DCA possesses charged. ) (citations omitted); Drake v. State, 400 So. 2d 1217, 1219 (Fla. 1981)( A mere general similarity will not render the similar facts legally relevant to show identity. ). Here, a careful review of the record indicates that both the collateral robbery and the robbery at issue share unique features suggesting the same perpetrator. Black, 630 So. 2d at 618. Further, contrary to the defendant s assertion, although there were dissimilarities between the two crimes, the collateral crime was properly admitted where the dissimilarities were insubstantial and the similarities were unique. See Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186, 194 (Fla. 1997)(holding that although the collateral crime and crime charged were not exactly the same, collateral crime evidence still admissible where there were unique similarities between the two crimes), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1083 (1998); Black, 630 So. 2d at 617-18 (holding that collateral crime admissible to establish identity where similarities are substantial and dissimilarities are inconsequential); Gore v. State, 599 So. 2d 978, 984 (Fla.)(holding that collateral crime admissible where similarities are pervasive, and the dissimilarities insubstantial. ), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1003 (1992). Accordingly, 3 we affirm the defendant s convictions and sentences. Affirmed. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
