Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog
When attempting to demonstrate a defendant’s guilt in a theft crime case, the State will often rely on both direct and circumstantial evidence. In some instances, the State may attempt to introduce evidence of collateral crimes as well. Such evidence is only admissible in certain circumstances, though, as discussed in a recent Florida ruling. If you are charged with depriving another person of their property, it is smart to confer with a Tampa theft crime defense attorney regarding what defenses may be available.
History of the Case
It is reported that a jury convicted the defendant of first-degree grand theft and second-degree grand theft. During the trial, the prosecution introduced evidence of the defendant’s alleged fraudulent actions during her bankruptcy case, arguing that this evidence was relevant to the theft charges. Specifically, the prosecution presented a recording of a meeting between the defendant and the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee, in which the defendant was confronted about not disclosing a property transfer in her bankruptcy documents.
Allegedly, the defendant explained that she transferred ownership to avoid creditor liens. The defense objected to the admission of this recording, arguing that the actions described were dissimilar to the grand theft charges. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence, leading to the defendant’s conviction and subsequent appeal.
Collateral Crime Evidence in Theft Cases
On appeal, the court reviewed the trial court’s decision to admit the collateral crime evidence, also known as Williams rule evidence, and found that it constituted an abuse of discretion. The court noted that for collateral crime evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and probative of a material fact in the case, such as intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake.
However, the court determined that the defendant’s actions in the bankruptcy case were more akin to fraudulent transfer than theft, as they involved transferring her own property to avoid creditor claims rather than taking property belonging to another. Therefore, the court concluded that this evidence was not relevant to proving the defendant’s intent or actions related to the grand theft charges.
Furthermore, the court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the defendant’s statements to the bankruptcy trustee were admissible as party admissions, finding that these statements did not prove or disprove any material fact related to the theft charges.
The court emphasized that the improper admission of such collateral crime evidence is presumed harmful, particularly since the prosecution relied on this evidence during closing arguments, and the jury requested to review the recording during deliberations. This suggested that the jury may have improperly considered the evidence in determining the defendant’s guilt. As a result, the court reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial on both counts.
Meet with an Experienced Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer
If you are charged with a theft offense, it is critical to understand your rights, and you should meet with an attorney as soon as possible. The experienced Tampa theft crime defense lawyers at Hanlon Law can inform you of your rights and develop a strategy to help you seek the best legal result available in your case. You can contact Hanlon Law using our online form or by calling 813-228-7095 to arrange a conference.