Is Bankruptcy Fraud the Same Thing as “Grand Theft” in Florida?

In a criminal case, Florida prosecutors may try to introduce evidence of crimes the defendant may have committed other than the charged offense. There are, however, restrictions on such evidence. Florida courts must apply what is known as the Williams rule to decide if “collateral crime evidence” is relevant and would not prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

For example, if a defendant is charged with DUI, the state cannot introduce evidence of the defendant’s conviction for shoplifting five years earlier. The two offenses bear no relation to one another. More to the point, the prior conviction would only serve to paint the defendant as a “bad character” who must be punished.

Florida Appeals Court Orders New Trial Due to Williams Rule Violation

Even if the previous crime is dissimilar to the charged offense, the Williams rule may still permit a jury to hear about a prior conviction if it is relevant and “probative” to the present case in some way. That said, the state still cannot use a prior offense simply to tarnish the defendant’s character.

A recent decision from the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, Gutierrez v. State, provides a case in point. Prosecutors in this case charged the defendant with two counts of grand theft. Under Florida law, “grand theft” requires the state to prove that the defendant “knowingly obtained or used, or endeavored to obtain or use, the property of another with intent to deprive that person” of said property. Notably, grand theft requires proof the defendant formed the “specific intent” to take the property at the time of the act.

At trial, the prosecution introduced evidence related to the defendant’s 21016 federal bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy trustee who oversaw the defendant’s case testified about a meeting where the defendant admitted she had transferred her house to a legal entity under her control for the purpose of preventing her creditors from attaching a lien to the property. The prosecution argued this evidence established the defendant’s “intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake or accident” with respect to the alleged grand theft offenses.

The trial court allowed the jury to hear the bankruptcy trustee’s evidence over the defense’s objection. The jury ultimately found the defendant guilty of grand theft. On appeal, however, the Fourth District held the defendant was entitled to a new trial, precisely because the trustee’s evidence was inadmissible under the Wliiams rule.

The appellate court noted that bankruptcy fraud was “more akin to a fraudulent transfer” than to grand theft. Indeed, the alleged bankruptcy fraud here involved the defendant transferring her own property, whereas grand theft requires proof she took someone else’s property. As such, the prior bankruptcy fraud did not “tend to prove or disprove” the defendant had a propensity to commit grand theft.

Contact the Joshi Law Firm Today

If you are charged with grand theft or any other offense involving the unlawful taking of property, you must be prepared to zealously defend yourself in court with our Orlando theft crimes lawyers. Call the Joshi Law Firm, P.A., today at 844-GO-JOSHI or contact us online to schedule a free initial consultation.

Source:

4dca.flcourts.gov/content/download/2437381/opinion/Opinion_2023-0106.pdf