Case Name: Joe BANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-06-26
Citations: 400 So. 2d 188
Docket Number: No. YY-335
Parties: Joe BANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: MILLS, C.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 400
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
Joe BANKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. YY-335.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
June 26, 1981.
Gerald A. McGill, of Wells, Brown & Brady, Pensacola, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his convictions for burglary and grand theft arguing the State improperly introduced evidence of collateral crimes committed by a state witness. We reverse.
Early in 1980 a rash of burglaries were committed in Escambia County, where vice grips were used to gain access to dwellings. Appellant was charged with having been involved in one such burglary on January 26, 1980. Prior to trial, a motion in limine was filed requesting the State be prohibited from presenting collateral matters concerning crimes committed by a state witness other than the burglary and grand theft of January 26, 1980. The motion was denied and over defense objections James F. Marshall was permitted to testify as to involvement in approximately 100 vice grip burglaries in a three-month period. Marshall testified as to numerous other persons who were involved in various burglaries with him, what property was taken, where it was fenced, and for what the proceeds were used. Marshall testified that he and appellant were friends throughout the time these vice grip burglaries were committed, and Marshall testified that appellant was friends with each of the other named individuals who participated in these burglaries.
Marshall's testimony did not constitute proper Williams Rule testimony as it did not involve testimony of prior criminal activity of the defendant. Hirsch v. State, 279 So.2d 866 (Fla.1973); Armstrong v. State, 377 So.2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Had the testimony been relevant we would still be compelled to reverse as the State made these collateral offenses a feature of the trial instead of an incident thereto. Williams v. State, 117 So.2d 473 (Fla.1960). As in Fulton v. State, 335 So.2d 280 (Fla.1976), the possible "spill-over" effect, when a jury's perception of the defendant may have been colored by the knowledge , of a friend's involvement in a collateral matter, requires reversal.
REVERSED AND REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MILLS, C.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
JOANOS, J., dissents with written opinion.
. Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).