One of the most important fights in a criminal case is over what the jury will be allowed to hear about your past. Florida law starts from a strong premise: a person is tried for what they are charged with, not for who the State says they are. Evidence offered only to suggest that you are the kind of person who would commit the crime is generally barred.
The exception, known as the Williams rule, is narrow, and keeping the State inside its limits is often decisive, because few things sway a jury like the suggestion of a pattern.
The Rule Against Propensity Evidence
Section 90.404(1) bars using a person’s character to prove that the person acted in conformity with it. The reasoning is practical as much as principled: propensity evidence is often weak proof of what happened on a given day, yet juries tend to treat it as powerful, which is exactly the kind of unfair prejudice the rules guard against.
| Rule | What it does |
|---|---|
| The general bar | Under section 90.404(1), evidence of a person’s character is generally not admissible to prove that the person acted in keeping with it on this occasion. The State usually cannot argue that because you did something before, you must have done it now. |
| The Williams rule | Section 90.404(2)(a) lets the State introduce other crimes, wrongs, or acts only for a non-propensity purpose, such as motive, intent, knowledge, identity, a common plan, or the absence of mistake. It must be relevant to a real issue, not to character. |
| The 90.403 balance | Even relevant other-acts evidence is kept out when its unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its value. Because juries tend to overweigh this evidence, the balancing under section 90.403 is a central battleground. |
| Becoming a feature | Other-acts evidence cannot become a feature of the trial, turning a case about one charge into a referendum on the person’s history. When it does, it is a ground to exclude it or to undo a conviction. |
Juries are human, and once they hear that a person has a record, or has done something bad before, it is hard for them to un-hear it. A large part of defending a case is fought before trial, over what the jury is allowed to learn about you. I work to keep your past where it belongs, out of a trial about the present charge. Learn more about my background.
The Williams Rule and Its Limits
Section 90.404(2)(a), long known as the Williams rule after Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959), opens a controlled door. The State may offer evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts when it is relevant to prove something other than character, such as motive, opportunity, intent, knowledge, identity, a common scheme, or the absence of mistake. The defense holds the State to that purpose, because the rule is not a license to show the jury a bad record. Even when the evidence clears that bar, it must survive the section 90.403 balancing, and it cannot be allowed to become the feature of the trial.
Keeping It Out
This is litigated before trial, through a motion in limine and at any required hearing, where the defense argues that the real purpose is propensity, that the prejudice swamps any value, or that the State has not given the notice the rule requires. Winning that argument can change the entire shape of a trial, because it decides what story the jury is allowed to hear.
Common Questions
Can the jury hear about my criminal record?
Usually not, when it is offered only to suggest you are the type of person who would commit the crime. Florida law generally bars character and propensity evidence. There are limited exceptions, and if you testify the rules about your record shift somewhat, which is one of many things to weigh before deciding whether to take the stand.
What is the Williams rule?
It is the Florida rule, in section 90.404(2)(a), that allows the State to use evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts for a specific non-propensity purpose, such as motive, intent, identity, or a common plan. The evidence has to be relevant to a real issue in the case, not offered just to paint you as a bad person.
If the State has prior-acts evidence, can I keep it out?
Often, yes, in whole or in part. The defense can argue that the only real purpose is propensity, that the unfair prejudice substantially outweighs any value under section 90.403, that the acts are not similar or connected enough, or that the State failed to give proper notice. These arguments are made before trial through a motion in limine.
What does it mean for prior acts to become a feature of the trial?
It means the other-acts evidence takes over, so the trial drifts from the charged offense into the person's history. Florida courts treat that as improper, because it invites the jury to convict on character rather than on proof of the crime charged, and it can be a basis to exclude the evidence or to reverse a conviction.
Does this apply if I never testify?
Yes. The bar on propensity evidence and the limits of the Williams rule apply to the State's case regardless of whether you testify. Your decision about testifying is separate, and it carries its own consequences for what the jury may learn, which is why it is made carefully with counsel.
Related: Legal defenses overview, Challenging the evidence, Search and seizure, and About Rory Safir.
This page is general information about Florida law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Character evidence is governed by section 90.404, Florida Statutes, with the general bar in section 90.404(1) and the other-acts rule, long known as the Williams rule after Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959), in section 90.404(2)(a), subject to the unfair-prejudice balancing in section 90.403. Whether particular evidence can be excluded depends entirely on the specific facts, and the law can change, so confirm anything here with counsel about your own situation. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements.
