Eric Robinson v. State of Florida

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ERIC ROBINSON,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D2023-1530
[November 12, 2025]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Bernard I. Bober, Judge; L.T. Case No. 17-011373-CF-
10A.
Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James 	Uthmeier, 	Attorney 	General, 	Tallahassee, 	and 	Luke 	R.
Napodano, 	Senior 	Assistant 	Attorney 	General, 	West 	Palm 	Beach, 	for
appellee.
M AY , J.
The defendant appeals his conviction for second-degree murder and life
sentence. 	He argues the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding
the victim’s girlfriend’s motive to kill the victim, and in admitting evidence
the defendant had recently been released from jail prior to the murder.
The defendant also argues the trial court erred in denying a motion to
continue the previous trial and in sentencing him as a habitual felony
offender. 	And last, he argues he was entitled to a twelve-person jury. 	We
find no error and affirm.
• 	The Facts
The victim, the defendant, and the girlfriend were roommates. 	The
girlfriend dated the defendant before he went to jail. 	Unbeknownst to the
defendant, the girlfriend began dating the victim while the defendant was
incarcerated. Two days after his release from jail, the defendant killed the

2
victim after finding the victim and the girlfriend in bed together. 	The
defendant and the girlfriend proceeded to dispose of the body and cover
up the murder.
The 	State 	charged 	the 	defendant 	with 	second-degree 	murder 	and
charged the girlfriend with accessory after the fact. 	The defense argued
the girlfriend killed the victim and blamed it on the defendant. 	The first
trial ended in a mistrial. 	The second trial began the following week.
A few weeks prior to the murder, the girlfriend and victim had a fight.
The girlfriend damaged the victim’s vehicle and had to stay at a hotel
overnight. 	The defendant sought to admit evidence of this domestic
dispute. The State argued the details were irrelevant to the charged crime
as the victim and the girlfriend were back together at the time of the
incident.
On the day of the murder, the girlfriend awoke to the defendant in the
bedroom. According to her, the defendant bludgeoned the victim to death.
The defendant then had her travel with him to dispose of the body. 	They
went to the dump, attempted to find a place in the Everglades, but
ultimately deposited the body in a dumpster behind a Publix.
They shopped for materials to clean the crime scene. 	The defendant
cut the blood-soaked mattress into pieces and disposed of it in another
dumpster. 	They both painted inside the house.
The girlfriend eventually called her ex-husband, who advised her to
contact the police. 	The police called the girlfriend and then came to the
house. 	The girlfriend told police where the body and mattress were
located.
A video showing the defendant driving a pickup truck into the landfill
was 	admitted 	into 	evidence. 	The 	victim 	and 	the 	defendant 	were
contributors to DNA on the defendant’s right shoe. The defendant was a
contributor to DNA from a white spot on a blue bed sheet. 	The girlfriend
and the defendant were contributors to DNA on the inside of gloves
recovered by the police.
Cell site data showed the defendant’s and girlfriend’s cell phones moved
together from the homicide location to the Publix, to around Big Lots, then
returned to the homicide location.
The lead detective testified as a defense witness that he took several
statements from the girlfriend, which resulted in multiple inconsistencies.

3
Initially, the girlfriend said she never had a phone, but surveillance footage
proved her wrong. 	Throughout her statements, the order of events kept
changing 	and 	certain 	places 	were 	left 	out. 	The 	girlfriend 	was 	also
inconsistent about whether she helped remove the body from the house.
During the deliberations, the jurors asked about the time frame of the
defendant’s relationship to the girlfriend. 	The trial court instructed the
jury to rely on their collective recollection of the testimony. The jury found
the defendant guilty of second-degree murder and specifically found the
defendant carried, displayed, or used a weapon during the commission of
the crime. 	The trial court sentenced the defendant to life in prison as a
habitual felony offender.
• 	The Analysis
On appeal, the defendant raises five issues. 	We affirm all of them but
write to discuss the evidentiary issues.
o 	Excluding details of a prior domestic incident.
First, the defendant argues the trial court erred in excluding evidence
of 	the 	girlfriend’s 	motive 	to 	kill 	the 	victim, 	which 	included 	that 	the
girlfriend smashed the victim’s truck during an argument. 	The victim
called the police, demanded money from the girlfriend for the damage, and
threatened to have her arrested.
The State responds that the defense failed to proffer evidence drawing
a nexus between the domestic dispute and the murder. The evidence was
merely an inadmissible prior bad act. 	Even if relevant, any relevance was
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. And any error
was harmless.
We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an
abuse of discretion, limited by the rules of evidence. 	Tripoli v. State, 50
So. 3d 776, 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citation omitted).
During the second trial, the State moved to exclude evidence of the
domestic incident. 	The State argued this was “reverse Williams1 rule”
evidence which required a hearing. The State noted the defense sought to
introduce damage against a vehicle rather than violence against the victim.
1 Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959).

4
The trial court excluded the evidence, finding it was a prior bad act,
showing the girlfriend was prone to be violent, and there was nothing to
establish a motive. 	The trial court allowed the defense to argue the
girlfriend and the victim had many arguments with each other but could
not get into the specifics of prior bad acts.
Prior to the girlfriend testifying, the defense asked the court to revisit
the issue. 	The defense argued it should be able to show the victim
threatened the girlfriend with arrest putting her immigration status in
jeopardy.
The trial court ruled that the defense could admit evidence that the
girlfriend and the victim had a verbal fight over money and the victim
kicked the girlfriend out of the house. 	The trial court also allowed the
defense to introduce evidence that the victim wanted money because the
girlfriend wrecked his truck but prohibited the defense from describing
how she wrecked his truck.
The defense proffered the girlfriend’s anticipated testimony. 	The trial
court stated its ruling would stay the same and those areas of inquiry were
inadmissible as prior bad acts and “simply irrelevant to the incident that
occurred here.”
During the girlfriend’s cross-examination, the defense elicited that the
victim and the girlfriend had argued prior to the murder and the victim did
not want her back home. The girlfriend stayed in a hotel for one night and
returned home the next day. 	The State’s objection to defense counsel’s
questions regarding the victim demanding money from the girlfriend were
sustained.2
The issue boils down to whether the trial court correctly found the prior
domestic incident was not relevant and more prejudicial than probative.
“Generally, the test for the admissibility of evidence is relevance.”
Castanon v. State, 162 So. 3d 52, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citing § 90.402,
Fla. Stat. (2012)). “Relevant evidence is defined by statute as ‘evidence
tending to prove or disprove a material fact.’” Id. (citing § 90.401, Fla.
Stat.).
To determine whether to admit relevant evidence, the court must apply
a balancing test, weighing the probative value of the evidence against the
2 The defense later also proffered the testimony of the officer who responded to
the domestic incident between the girlfriend and the victim.

5
danger of unfair prejudice, among other factors. State v. McClain, 525 So.
2d 420, 421 (Fla. 1988). 	The trial court possesses “a large measure of
discretion . . . to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is
substantially outweighed” by the danger of unfair prejudice. 	Id. at 422.
Accordingly, 	“[i]f 	a 	defendant’s 	purpose 	is 	to 	shift 	suspicion 	from
himself to another person, evidence of past criminal conduct of that other
person should be of such nature that it would be admissible if that person
were on trial for the present offense.” State v. Savino, 567 So. 2d 892, 894
(Fla. 1990).
Here, as the trial court correctly noted, the relevance of the prior
domestic incident to the murder was virtually nonexistent. 	The incident
did not show the girlfriend had been physically violent toward the victim.
And the trial court permitted the defense to discuss the incident without
the factual detail. Even under the Savino test, “[e]vidence of bad character
or propensity to commit a crime by another would not be admitted; such
evidence should benefit a criminal defendant no more than it should
benefit the state.” 567 So. 2d at 894.
The trial court found, and we agree, the evidence was more prejudicial
than probative. 	See § 90.403, Fla. Stat.
We see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision. 	We also
deem any error harmless as the trial court allowed the defense to discuss
the incident without irrelevant detail. 	McCall v. State, 365 So. 3d 1253,
1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (quoting Thorne v. State, 271 So. 3d 177, 185
(Fla. 1st DCA 2019)).
o 	Admitting evidence that the defendant was released from
jail.
In his second argument, the defendant argues the trial court erred in
allowing the State to introduce that the defendant was incarcerated for an
unrelated crime prior to the murder. 	He claims the evidence of the
defendant’s unexpected discovery of the relationship between the victim
and the girlfriend could have been introduced without specifying the
defendant had been released from jail.
The State responds the evidence was relevant “to establish the entire
context out of which the homicide arose. . . .” 	In any event, the State
suggests the error was harmless.

6
We review a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence for an
abuse of discretion, limited by the rules of evidence. 	Tripoli, 50 So. 3d at
779.
Prior 	to 	trial, 	the 	defendant 	moved 	to 	exclude 	evidence 	he 	was
incarcerated and released days before the murder. 	During the first trial,
the trial court ruled that the defendant being in jail went to motive and
explained the events leading up to the murder. 	The trial court found it
would explain why the defendant was so upset.
During jury selection on the second trial, defense counsel questioned
the 	prospective 	jurors 	regarding 	the 	jail 	issue. 	The 	defense 	struck
prospective jurors unable to set the jail issue aside. 	The defense also
crafted 	a 	special 	jury 	instruction 	that 	evidence 	of 	the 	defendant’s
incarceration 	for 	a 	non-violent 	offense 	should 	not 	be 	considered 	as
evidence of guilt in the instant case. 	The trial court read that instruction
to the jury.
“Evidence is inextricably intertwined if the evidence is necessary to (1)
adequately describe the deed; (2) provide an intelligent account of the
crime(s) charged; (3) establish the entire context out of which the charged
crime(s) arose, or (4) adequately describe the events leading up to the
charged crime(s).” 	McGee v. State, 19 So. 3d 1074, 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA
2009) (quoting Dorsett v. State, 944 So. 2d 1207, 1213 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)).
The trial court applies a balancing test to determine whether to admit
relevant evidence. 	McClain, 525 So. 2d at 421. 	The trial court possesses
discretion in making this determination.
We agree with the trial court. 	The defendant’s stay in the jail prior to
the murder was relevant and inextricably intertwined. It was necessary to
establish the context out of which the charged crime arose. 	When the
defendant was released, he went to the residence he had shared with the
girlfriend to collect his things. 	There, he found the victim’s love letter to
the girlfriend. 	The love letter created the motive for the murder.
Here, the evidence was “sanitized” of all unnecessary details that would
be more prejudicial than probative as the jury was not informed of the
defendant’s specific offense, and was told it was a non-violent offense. See
Kates v. State, 41 So. 3d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“[E]ven if
evidence 	of 	an 	uncharged 	crime 	is 	inextricably 	intertwined 	with 	the
charged offense and is thus admissible to establish the entire context of
the crime, unnecessary details must be excluded.”).

7
While it may not have been the decision another judge may have made,
it was not such that no reasonable judge would have reached the same
conclusion as is required to find an abuse of discretion. 	See Canakaris v.
Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980).
We also agree that any error on this issue was harmless. Ross v. State,
913 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). The defense had the opportunity to
question the venire. 	And the trial court provided a special instruction to
advise the jury the defendant’s confinement was for a non-violent offense.
See Villanueva v. State, 917 So. 2d 968, 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
Affirmed.
KUNTZ , C.J., and M ETZGER , ELIZABETH, Associate Judge, concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.