Case Name: Joe Windall WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-11-10
Citations: 626 So. 2d 315
Docket Number: No. 91-03213
Parties: Joe Windall WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: FRANK, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 626
Pages: 315–316

Head Matter:
Joe Windall WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 91-03213.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Nov. 10, 1993.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sue R. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
PATTERSON, Judge.
The appellant challenges his judgment and sentence for battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence, and possession of cannabis. He argues that the trial court erred in admitting a videotape made of him while he was in a holding cell after his arrest. We agree. The videotape was not relevant to the charged offenses, it did not contain any incriminatory statements, nor was it proper rebuttal evidence. It failed to prove any fact in issue. See Stano v. State, 473 So.2d 1282 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1093, 106 S.Ct. 869, 88 L.Ed.2d 907 (1986). The tape only showed the appellant in a rage and his refusal to make any statements to the police. Nothing the appellant said in the tape contradicted his testimony at trial. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a new trial.
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.