← Case library
4th DCADecember 4, 2024Reversed and remanded for a new trial⭐ Notable

Music v. State

Case No. 4D2024-0018

The Fourth DCA reversed an attempted murder and burglary conviction, holding the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a co-defendant's testimony that he and appellant committed forty to fifty prior car burglaries together. The court found the evidence failed the Williams rule test for identity/modus operandi because the prior crimes lacked the requisite unique 'signature' similarity (none involved a firearm), were uncorroborated by anything beyond the co-defendant's testimony, and were not inextricably intertwined with the charged offense. Because identity was the central disputed issue and the evidence was highly prejudicial, the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Key facts

  • Music was charged with attempted murder and burglary; the trial court admitted testimony from a co-defendant that he and Music had committed forty to fifty prior car burglaries together.
  • The co-defendant's testimony about the prior burglaries was uncorroborated, lacked specific dates or details, and none of the prior crimes involved a firearm despite the charged offense involving a shooting.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

This opinion reinforces and applies the strict two-part Williams rule framework—clear and convincing proof of the prior act plus a genuine 'signature' similarity for identity-based admissions—in a context where a… — full analysis with a trial

🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.