Opinion ID: 1831455
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: implied admission

Text: Johnston argues that the trial court abused its discretion and committed harmful error by allowing the State to introduce, as implied admissions, statements made by Johnston during custodial interrogation concerning a person living within him named Dwight. Johnston argues that the statements were irrelevant to prove the charged offense and showed only criminal or violent propensity, bad character, and possible lunacy.
A trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. See Carpenter v. State, 785 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 2001) (citing Blanco v. State, 452 So.2d 520, 523 (Fla.1984)). The trial court's discretion is limited by the rules of evidence. See Nardone v. State, 798 So.2d 870, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). In order to be admissible, an admission by a party opponent must be relevant, i.e., it must have some logical bearing on an issue of material fact. See Swafford v. State, 533 So.2d 270, 274 (Fla.1988). In the context of a criminal trial, an admission by the defendant is admissible if it tends in some way, when taken together with other facts, to establish guilt. Id. The evidence must be relevant to a material issue other than propensity or bad character. Drake v. State, 441 So.2d 1079, 1082 (Fla.1983). In Swafford, this Court considered the admissibility of a defendant's statements in a trial for first-degree murder and sexual battery. Swafford was on trial for the abduction, rape, and murder of a gas station attendant. The victim had been shot nine times, twice in the head. Id. at 272. A witness for the State testified that two months after the murder Swafford suggested getting a girl and said, [W]e'll do anything we want to and I'll shoot her. Id. at 273. Swafford and the witness drove to a department store parking lot that same night. Id. The witness asked Swafford whether he would not be bothered after abducting, raping and murdering a victim selected in a parking lot. Id. Swafford responded, [Y]ou just get used to it. Id. This Court said: Swafford's statement that you just get used to it, when viewed in the context of his having just said that they could get a girl, do anything they wanted to with her and shoot her twice in the head so there wouldn't be any witnesses, was evidence which tended to prove that he had committed just such a crime in Daytona Beach only two months before. Id. at 273-74. Likewise, in Johnson v. State, 438 So.2d 774, 779 (Fla.1983), this Court held that the defendant's statement that he would not mind shooting people to obtain money was admissible. The same evening that Johnson made the statement, a deputy sheriff and a taxicab driver were shot and the taxicab driver was robbed.
After a proffer of testimony concerning the Dwight statements, the trial court overruled the defense's objection and admitted the Dwight statements as implied admissions in reliance on this Court's reasoning in Swafford. The Dwight statements were made by Johnston to Detectives Noblitt and Stanton during their third interview with Johnston, after the detectives advised Johnston that they had recovered his fingerprints close to Nugent's body and had executed a search warrant on his apartment. At that time Johnston said to the detectives, I think I have a problem. Johnston told the detectives that he had another person named Dwight living inside of him and said that Dwight was very mean and I got to be cautious. Detective Noblitt testified that Johnston sat and put his fists together and clenched his fists real tight with his knuckles almost turning white and leaned back in his chair and kind of closed his eyes ... and he said `You've got to see him, man.' During the same interview Johnston denied that Dwight killed Nugent. At the time the statements were made, Johnston was in jail awaiting trial for the Coryell murder. He was fully aware of the purpose of the interview, had been advised of his constitutional rights, had been told that his fingerprints were found very close to the victim, and had been told that a search warrant had been executed on his apartment. Additionally, Williams rule evidence established that Johnston blamed Dwight for the Coryell murder. Although Johnston did not expressly blame Dwight for the Nugent murder, the fact that Johnston spoke of Dwight while being questioned on his involvement in the Nugent murder is significant. Pursuant to the holding in Swafford, the question for this Court is whether the Dwight statements constitute evidence tending to prove that Johnston committed the Nugent murder. See Swafford, 533 So.2d at 273. A review of the record shows that the statements, taken in the context in which they were made and in light of the statements made during the Coryell murder, constitute evidence tending to show that Johnston was involved in the Nugent murder. The statements are relevant to show more than just propensity or bad character. We therefore hold that the admission of the Dwight statements was not an abuse of discretion.