State v. Norris

Summary

The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed a decision concerning the admissibility of similar-fact evidence in Effie L. Norris's murder trial. The court held that such evidence may be admissible when relevant, but there must be clear and convincing proof connecting the accused to the collateral occurrences; mere suspicion is insufficient. The court found no conflict with prior precedent and discharged the writ as improvidently issued.

Holdings

1. Similar-fact evidence is admissible when relevant to a fact in issue, except when offered merely to prove bad character or criminal propensity; however, the evidence must be accompanied by clear and convincing proof connecting the accused to the collateral occurrences.
2. The District Court of Appeal's decision did not conflict with Williams v. State because it applied, rather than rejected, Williams's relevancy rule by requiring proof connecting the accused to the collateral occurrences.

Questions Presented

1. Whether similar-fact evidence concerning arsenic found in the bodies of two deceased persons was admissible to prove Norris's guilt when the State had not presented evidence connecting Norris with the collateral occurrences.
2. Whether the District Court of Appeal's decision conflicted with Williams v. State concerning the admissibility of similar-fact evidence.

Disposition

writ_denied