What Is the “Williams Rule”–and How Could It Affect My Florida Criminal Case?

In Florida criminal cases, you will often hear lawyers and judges discuss something called the “Williams Rule.” This rule comes from a 1959 decision from the Supreme Court of Florida, Williams v. State, which addressed when prosecutors may introduce evidence of other or “collateral” crimes against a defendant at trial. Basically, the Court held that such evidence is admissible when it “was relevant except for the purpose of degrading the character of the accused.”

The Williams Rule means that prosecutors cannot use evidence of other crimes to prove you are a bad character. But they can use such evidence to prove a “material fact” relevant to the crime you are actually on trial for. This can include motive, opportunity, intent, or identity.

Florida Court Upholds Attempted Murder Convictions

Here is a practical illustration of how the Williams Rule works. In a recent decision, Ragan v. State, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed two attempted murder convictions against a defendant accused of shooting a man more than 10 years earlier. In 2013, the victim in this case was riding his bicycle home when a vehicle passed him and stopped. A man exited the vehicle, demanded money from the victim, and then fired several shots from a handgun as the victim attempted to flee. The victim required extensive medical care but survived the shooting.

Six years later, police made an arrest in the case. Prosecutors charged the defendant with attempted felony murder with a firearm and attempted premeditated murder with a deadly weapon. At trial, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence under the Williams Rule connecting the defendant to two other shootings that occurred around the same time as the one in this case. All three shootings involved the same firearm.

The trial judge held the evidence was admissible under the Williams Rule for the limited purpose of proving the defendant’s “identity,” that is, he was the alleged shooter in all three cases. The jury found the defendant guilty of the two attempted murder counts, and the trial judge imposed a sentence of 37.5 years, with at least 25 years to be served as a mandatory minimum under Florida law.

On appeal, the Third District held the trial court acted within its discretion in allowing the jury to hear evidence of the other two uncharged shootings. The appellate court noted that the trial itself did not focus heavily on the other crimes. The prosecution never mentioned the other shootings in its opening statement. Most of the witnesses testified as to the shooting of the victim in this case. And the evidence related to the uncharged crimes largely focused on establishing the same gun was used in all three shootings.

Contact AsiliA Law Firm Today

If you are facing homicide or firearms-related criminal charges in Florida, you could be facing a significant prison sentence upon conviction. That is why you need to work with a qualified Miami murder and homicide lawyer who can provide you with a zealous defense. Call AsiliA Law Firm today at 786-420-3014 or contact us online to schedule an initial consultation.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3032884821296916434