Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Robert Hamilton’s convictions for robbery and possession of a firearm. The court held that evidence of Hamilton’s involvement in a similar robbery at another chicken restaurant was admissible to show a common scheme, and alternatively concluded that any error was harmless in light of the eyewitness testimony.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether evidence of Hamilton's involvement in another restaurant robbery was inadmissible propensity evidence or was admissible to establish a common scheme.
- If admission of the other-robbery evidence was erroneous, whether the error was harmless in light of the eyewitness identification testimony.
Holdings
- Evidence of another crime is admissible when relevant and tends to establish matters such as identity, common scheme or design, guilty knowledge, or intent. The evidence of the Chuck's Fried Chicken robbery was admissible to show a common scheme because of the substantial similarities between the two robberies.
- Even if the evidence of the second robbery had been inadmissible, its admission was harmless in view of the overwhelming eyewitness testimony identifying Hamilton as the perpetrator of the charged robbery.
Key quotations
“Evidence revealing other crimes is admissible if relevant and if it tends to show identity, common scheme or design, guilty knowledge, intent, etc.” (356 So. 2d at 30)
“Thus, evidence of this second robbery was admissible to show a common scheme.” (356 So. 2d at 30)
Factual background
Hamilton was convicted of robbing a Chicken Unlimited Restaurant and possessing a firearm. The prosecution introduced evidence of his involvement in a robbery of Chuck's Fried Chicken, another fast-food chicken restaurant located within thirty blocks on the same highway; the second robbery occurred within one day of the charged robbery, and both involved a firearm placed in Hamilton's waistband.
Procedural history
The trial court admitted evidence that Hamilton was involved in a robbery of another chicken restaurant. After being convicted of robbery and possession of a firearm, Hamilton appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. The appellate court affirmed, holding the other-crimes evidence admissible to show a common scheme and alternatively concluding that any error was harmless.