State v. Savino

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• discussing that only after the relevance requirement is satisfied is prejudice or confusion determined
• setting forth the test for determining the admissibility of similar-fact evidence of past crimes offered for the purpose of identifying the perpetrator of the crime being tried
• describing \reverse Williams rule evidence\ as similar fact evidence offered by a defendant to show that someone else committed the crime for which the defendant is being tried (citing Rivera v. State, 561 So. 2d 536, 539 (Fla. 1990))
• no abuse of discretion where trial court ruled inadmissible reverse Williams rule evidence that was not sufficiently similar to murder at issue
• “[W]e disagree that the degree of similarity of such crimes to be relevant should be modified when identity is sought to be proved, even though it is less likely that prejudice would occur when evidence of other crimes is sought to be introduced by a defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).