Davis v. State

Supreme Court of Florida · 2016 · Evidence

207 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 2016)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencerelevancecollateral crime evidencefeature of the trialdying declarationCrawfordConfrontation Clausephoto lineup

Facts

On the night of the BP murders, a masked gunman tried to enter the closed store, fired into the store, then shot two men outside and fled. The State linked Davis to the BP crimes through evidence that he bought a .357 revolver that day, drove a black Nissan Altima that evening, tire tracks near the scene were consistent with that car, and ballistic evidence showed the same gun was later used in the Headley shootings. During the BP guilt phase, the trial court admitted only limited Headley evidence, including eyewitness identifications of Davis as the Headley shooter, evidence of a black Nissan near Headley, and testimony that the same gun was used in both incidents. Headley victim Yvonne Bustamante also identified Davis before she died, and Greisman and Ortiz identified Davis from photographic lineups and again in court.

Issue

Whether the trial court properly admitted limited evidence from the Headley crimes during the BP guilt phase, including Bustamante's identification as a dying declaration and the eyewitness photo-lineup and in-court identifications, and whether the remaining evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The appeal also asked whether Florida's dying declaration exception remains valid after Crawford.

Rule

Relevant evidence is admissible if it tends to prove or disprove a material fact, but it must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; collateral-crime evidence may be admitted when limited to a material issue and not allowed to become a feature of the trial. A dying declaration remains a valid hearsay exception in Florida after Crawford when, considering the totality of the circumstances, the declarant knew and appreciated that death was certain and imminent, even without express words of impending death. Out-of-court identifications are evaluated by asking first whether police used an unnecessarily suggestive procedure and, if so, whether under the circumstances there was a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a murder trial in Orlando, the State cannot place Malik Turner at the scene directly. Six days later in Tampa, two witnesses identified Malik as the shooter in an unrelated assault, ballistics showed the same revolver was used in both incidents, and one witness saw a dark blue sedan like the one Malik regularly drove parked near the later scene. The trial judge excludes all testimony about the later victim's medical condition and other sensational details.

Should the judge admit the limited evidence from the later assault in the Orlando murder trial?

Explanation. The majority approved limited collateral-crime evidence where the totality of the evidence created a nexus between the defendant and the charged crime, particularly through the same gun and similar vehicle evidence, and where the trial court excluded inflammatory details so the collateral crime did not become a feature of the trial. Here, the same principles support admission.