Major FL Court REVERSES Lewd Molestation Conviction Over Erroneous Williams Rule Evidence

April 16, 2026 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Sex Crimes Social Share

Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal REVERSED a defendant’s lewd or lascivious molestation conviction, finding that collateral crime evidence of a sexual battery was erroneously admitted into evidence at the defendant’s trial.

CASE: Taylor v. State, 256 So.3d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)

Charge(s): Lewd or Lascivious Molestation

Outcome: Conviction reversed, as Williams Rule (collateral crime) evidence of a sexual battery committed upon another victim by the defendant was erroneously admitted into evidence at his trial.

Lewd or Lascivious Molestation in Florida

In Florida, lewd or lascivious molestation (Fla. Stat. 800.04(5)) is a very serious felony offense. For someone to be guilty, the State must prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt: 

• The defendant intentionally touched the breasts, genitals, genital area, buttocks or clothing covering them of the victim without the victim’s consent, or forced or enticed the victim to so touch them in this manner 
• The victim was under 16 years old
• The touching was lewd or lascivious 

Note: “Lewd” and “lascivious” are defined interchangeably under Florida law – they involve “a wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual intent on the part of the person doing an act.” (Fla. Stat. 800.04(8)). Feliciano v. State, 937 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)

Lewd or lascivious molestation is typically considered a second-degree felony under Florida law. It is punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine if the defendant was an adult (18 or older) and the victim was 12 to 15 years old. Per Fla. Stat. 800.04(5), the following penalty scheme applies if the ages of the victim/defendant change:

• Victim under 12, defendant 18 or older: A life felony punishable by up to life in prison (mandatory minimum of 25 years) and lifelong sex offender probation
• Victim under 12, defendant under 18: A second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine
• Victim between 12 and 15, defendant under 18: A third-degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine

If someone is found guilty of lewd or lascivious molestation, they are required to register as a sex offender/predator under most circumstances. But there are very narrow exceptions to this rule – in particular, Florida’s Romeo and Juliet law. The statute (Fla. Stat. 943.04354) allows someone to petition to avoid the registry if:

• The alleged victim was between the age of 14 and 17 years old at the time of the offense
• The defendant was not over four years older than the victim (1,460 days)
• The alleged victim consented to the sexual activity (not legally, but willingly chose to engage in the activity without the application of force or coercion)
• The defendant has no prior convictions for any sex crimes

Important: To learn more about sex offender and sexual predator registry in Florida (and when someone must register as a sexual predator rather than a sex offender), click here.

Though lewd or lascivious molestation can be done via “enticement,” this must involve physical contact between the defendant and the victim. Asking the victim to perform an act that would constitute lewd or lascivious molestation if completed, does not constitute lewd or lascivious molestation. Sylvaince v. State, — So.3d —- (Fla. 6th DCA 2025). For more, click here.

Notably, if someone was previously found guilty of lewd or lascivious molestation, an additional conviction for it carries a 10-year mandatory minimum sentence under HB 1455 – which took effect October 1, 2025. For more on this law, click here.

In a lewd or lascivious molestation case, the State may occasionally discover that the defendant has been accused of a previous sex crime that is arguably “similar” to the one they are charged with. Even if a defendant has never been formally charged with the offense, testimony (e.g. of the victim) relating to it might be admissible at the defendant’s trial in the instant case.

That’s because Florida has something called the “Williams Rule,” which governs the admission of what is frequently referred to as collateral crime evidence. 

If someone is accused of lewd or lascivious molestation, this is considered “child molestation” under Florida law for purposes of allowing Williams Rule evidence to be admitted at their trial. Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959)

Under the “Williams Rule” (Fla. Stat. 90.404), proof of SIMILAR but UNCHARGED criminal conduct allegedly perpetrated by a defendant against that victim OR another victim is admissible when the evidence/testimony is relevant to prove a MATERIAL FACT in issue. Donton v. State, 1 So.3d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)

Per Fla. Stat. 90.404, Williams Rule evidence may be offered for proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Such evidence is inadmissible, however, if it is relevant solely to proving “bad character or propensity.

This rule has been broadened by the Florida Legislature in child molestation cases. Per Fla. Stat. 90.404(2), ANY evidence of a defendant’s prior acts of child molestation (even if uncharged) – which may be “considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.” 

As a result, the State has broad discretion to introduce evidence or testimony regarding alleged prior sexual abuse of children by the defendant – even if the victims, context, and circumstances differ. However, that discretion is NOT unlimited, as courts have made clear.

Williams Rule evidence in child molestation cases must still be assessed with Fla. Stat. 90.403 in mind – which holds that even relevant evidence is inadmissible when its PROBATIVE VALUE (e.g. evidentiary value) is SUBSTANTIALLY outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 2006)

Given all of this, in cases involving lewd or lascivious molestation (or other alleged sex crimes against minors in Florida), have Florida courts reversed convictions on the basis that Williams Rule evidence (even if potentially relevant) was erroneously admitted because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the potential for unfair prejudice? The answer is YES.

One case where precisely this occurred was heard by Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeal (Northeast Florida’s highest court). There, the defendant was charged with lewd or lascivious molestation on a minor victim. The “collateral crime” testimony of two other alleged victims was admitted at the defendant’s trial pursuant to Fla. Stat. 90.404(2).

One of the alleged victims was the sister of the victim in the case. Pursuant to the Williams Rule, the trial judge allowed her to testify at the defendant’s trial that a year or so earlier, she had been molested in a similar manner by the defendant. This went unchallenged on appeal (it was clearly within the contemplation of the Williams Rule).

However, the State also sought to admit testimony of an UNRELATED victim from years prior that the defendant allegedly committed a SEXUAL BATTERY upon – an even more serious offense than the one he was charged with. The defendant strongly objected on two grounds:

• The allegation was sufficiently dissimilar to the charged crime such that it did not qualify as Williams Rule evidence
• Even if it did qualify, the danger of unfair prejudice was so great (because the conduct was uncharged) that the testimony should be excluded

The trial judge, over the defendant’s objection, admitted the testimony – and the defendant was convicted. However, his conviction was REVERSED by the 5th DCA, which ruled that the trial judge abused his discretion by allowing the sexual battery testimony under the Williams Rule.

Let’s look at that case – Taylor v. State, 256 So.3d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) – and discuss what it means for those in Florida who are charged with (or know someone charged with) sex crimes in Florida.

KEY CASE: Taylor v. State, 256 So.3d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) 

In Taylor, the defendant (Taylor) was charged with one count of lewd or lascivious molestation. He was convicted and appealed to the 5th DCA. According to the 5th DCA, the following was revealed at trial:

• Taylor was accused of lewd or lascivious molestation on a child under 12 (T.F.)
• The State sought to admit the testimony of two collateral crime victims (in addition to the testimony of T.F.) – J.F. and L.G. – pursuant to the Williams Rule
• Taylor objected to the admission of the testimony of both victims, but didn’t argue on appeal that the admission of J.F.’s testimony was improper (as this was a very similar incident that had allegedly occurred recently, falling squarely under the Williams Rule)
• However, Taylor STRONGLY OBJECTED to L.G. being allowed to testify – who was the older sister of T.F. and J.F. that was allegedly sexually battered (not just molested) by the victim at the age of 12
• L.G. alleged that Taylor held her down and sexually penetrated her “for a long time” – a more serious crime than the lewd or lascivious molestation he was accused of in the case at bar
• Taylor asserted that L.G. being permitted to testify at trial would violate Fla. Stat. 90.403 and the Williams Rule – as it was dissimilar to the charged offense (involving fondling) and the seriousness of the allegation would be very unfairly prejudicial relative to its probative value 
• The judge OVERRULED Taylor’s objection, and L.G. testified as to the alleged sexual battery at Taylor’s trial
• Taylor was found guilty of lewd or lascivious molestation upon T.F. 

On appeal, Taylor argued that the judge erred as a matter of law in admitting L.G.’s testimony – and that this was “harmful error” (e.g. may have impacted the jury’s verdict) that required him to receive a new trial. The 5th DCA AGREED and REVERSED Taylor’s conviction, remanding the matter for a new trial. Discussing the law surrounding the case, the 5th DCA wrote:

“The admissibility of collateral crime or similar fact evidence is within the discretion of the trial court as limited by the rules of evidence. LaMarca v. State, 785 So.2d 1209, 1212 (Fla. 2001). Nevertheless, as recognized by our sister court, “such discretion is not unfettered” in child molestation cases, Cotton v. State, 176 So.3d 310, 313 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), even though section 90.404(2)(b) 1. broadened the admissibility of similar fact evidence. See McLean v. State, 934 So.2d 1248, 1258-59 (Fla. 2006) (acknowledging that the 2001 enactment by the Legislature of section 90.404(2) broadened the admissibility of a defendant’s commission of other acts of child molestation). As our court has previously explained, relevancy still remains the threshold consideration for the trial court in this type of case when deciding whether to admit prior acts of child molestation. Fiore v. State, 967 So.2d 995, 997-98 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Triplett v. State, 947 So.2d 702, 703-04 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).”

Applying the law to the facts of the case, the 5th DCA found that although “some similarities” existed between the alleged (uncharged) sexual battery and the charged lewd molestation, the danger of unfair prejudice was enormous – requiring the trial judge to exclude L.G.’s testimony:

“As previously indicated, the trial court recognized in its order that the charged offense was less severe than the collateral crime and thus there was a greater risk of prejudice in admitting testimony regarding the collateral crime, but it reasoned that the “touching [of L.G.] prior to the sexual [battery] was similar” but that Taylor just “went further and committed the final act.” We believe that the collateral crime evidence presented during trial was unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded. First, there was no testimony at the pretrial hearing as to the specific nature of Taylor’s “touching” of L.G. prior to committing the sexual battery. Second, unlike at the pretrial hearing, L.G. did not testify at trial as to any “touching” by Taylor, only the sexual battery, thus making the trial evidence of the sexual battery committed on her even less similar to the charged crime and therefore less relevant and even more prejudicial than probative under McLean. Finally, even if the “touching” of L.G. was in fact similar to the alleged molestation of the victim, the jury had already heard other collateral crime or similar fact evidence from both the victim and another sister.”

“Collateral crime evidence violates a defendant’s right to due process if it is so prejudicial that it denies the defendant a fair trial.” … Given the significant dissimilarities between the charged crime and the collateral crime of the prior sexual battery committed by Taylor upon L.G., combined with the admittedly highly prejudicial nature of this evidence, and in light of the other similar fact evidence properly admitted, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of the sexual battery committed upon L.G. … Finally, we reject the State’s argument that the admission of this testimony was harmless error. … Accordingly, we reverse Taylor’s judgment and sentence and remand for a new trial.”

Put simply, because L.G.’s testimony was improperly admitted into evidence (e.g. heard by the jury), and this may have influenced the jury’s verdict, Taylor was entitled to a new trial.

In sum, Taylor v. State, 256 So.3d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) marks a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding admission of collateral crime (Williams Rule) evidence in sexual battery and lewd or lascivious cases. The 5th DCA (Northeast FL’s highest court) held that:

• The collateral crime testimony of T.F.’s sister was properly admitted, as the allegation was very similar to the one Taylor was being tried for (and the circumstances were as well)
• However, trial judge ERRED by allowing L.G. to testify as to an alleged sexual battery that had occurred
• There were many dissimilarities between the charged crime and the one L.G. testified to, and its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice (given the seriousness of the sexual battery allegation relative to the molestation charge)
• As a result, Taylor’s conviction was REVERSED and he received a new trial

Florida’s criminal defense community should take note of Taylor v. State, 256 So.3d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), as it is a defendant-friendly Williams Rule case.

If someone is charged in a case involving alleged sexual battery by a family member or person in custodial authority, it is critical to seek out experienced and trusted legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to hefty fines and prison time. 

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting criminal charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share