ST. CROIX — As former Senator Steven Payne Sr.’s sexual battery case involving a minor in Florida heads to trial with jury selection beginning Monday, the court has ruled state prosecutors can introduce evidence of two other bad acts that Payne allegedly committed.
The court is allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence of Payne’s alleged prior misconduct involving the minor at the center of the Florida criminal case and a young woman who accused Payne of making sexual advances toward her on a beach in 2005.
The court, however, ruled against allowing prosecutors to introduce evidence of an alleged prior act involving one of Payne’s former legislative employees who filed a sexual harassment complaint against him and subsequently accused him in a civil complaint of assault and false imprisonment during a stay at the King’s Alley Hotel in 2022 on St. Croix.
Payne is charged in the Florida case with one count of sexual battery on a person 12 years of age or older but less than 18. The incident allegedly occurred between August 1, 2018 and February 27, 2019. The case is being prosecuted in the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida.
The state filed three notices on March 4 that it intended to introduce evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts that Payne allegedly committed. Prosecutors sought to admit the evidence under Florida’s “Williams Rule,” which allows evidence of prior bad acts if it is relevant to proving motive, opportunity, intent, or other material facts.
Payne subsequently filed three motions on July 14 to block the state from introducing the evidence. His attorney, Dale Carson, argued the alleged acts are not relevant to the current charge and, even if deemed relevant, their prejudicial impact outweighs their probative value. He further contended the inclusion of such evidence would confuse the jury, distract from the core issues, and jeopardize a fair trial.
READ MORE: Former Sen. Payne fights evidence in Florida sexual bettery case as ex-employee urges action in hers
On July 15, the state filed an amended third notice of other crimes, wrongs, or acts centering around allegations against the alleged victim in the Florida case.
Circuit Judge Meredith Charbula, in a September 26 order in response to the state’s three notices, indicated that as a general rule, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. This evidence is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity, according to a section of Florida Rules of Evidence that specifically applies to charges of child molestation or a sexual offense.
In seeking to admit the evidence, the state did not need to show the other acts sought to be introduced were identical to the charged crime or even substantially similar. However, the Florida Supreme Court has observed that the similarity of the Williams rule evidence to the offense is still a critical part of a trial court’s analysis even under the relaxed standards of Florida Rules of Evidence, Rule 404(2)(b) and (c).
In making a determination after a hearing on the state’s notice and defendant’s objections, the court relied on deposition testimony.
Court rules prosecution can introduce evidence of grooming alleged victim in Florida case:
In the Florida case, the court found that the alleged victim’s description of the acts of grooming committed upon her established that the Williams Rule evidence sought to be admitted is credible and sufficiently precise, explicit, and lacking in confusion so as to qualify for admission under both sections of Florida Rules of Evidence. Accordingly, the court found the state has demonstrated, at this point in the proceedings, that there is clear and convincing evidence that these collateral acts were committed and the defendant is the one who committed them. The court also found that the evidence of other acts committed by the defendant are highly relevant, among other things, especially given that a reasonable fact finder could find these acts constitute grooming activities. They also were committed close in time to the charged acts. Having made these findings, the court then had to determine whether the probative value of the evidence was “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
The Florida Supreme Court, in McLean v. State, listed four factors that should be evaluated in determining whether the probative value of evidence of other sexual acts is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. These factors are the similarity and closeness in time of the prior acts to the act charged, the frequency of the prior acts, and the presence or lack of intervening circumstances. Based on the totality of the circumstances, and applying the McLean factors, the court found that the collateral crime evidence the state wishes to introduce as set forth in the state’s amended third notice is highly relevant. The court also found that the probative value of this highly relevant evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Accordingly, the court overruled the defendant’s objection to the state’s third Williams Rule notice.
Court rules prosecution can introduce evidence of 2005 beach incident:
The alleged victim testified in 2005 that she told the defendant, a uniformed sergeant with the Virgin Islands Police Department at the time who was her mentor, that she planned to attend the police academy in the Virgin Islands. Payne offered to provide her with defensive tactics training in preparation for the police academy. She stated that while on a beach training, Payne tried to force her to inappropriately touch him, grabbed her, and ripped her underwear before she was able to escape him.
The court found the alleged victim’s description of the defendant’s conduct establishes that the Williams Rule evidence sought to be admitted is credible and sufficiently precise, explicit, and lacking in confusion so as to qualify for admission under both sections of the Florida Rules of Evidence. Accordingly, the court found that the state has demonstrated, at this point in the proceedings, that there is clear and convincing evidence that these collateral acts were committed and the defendant is the one who committed them. The court also found that the evidence of sexual acts committed by the defendant on the alleged victim are highly relevant, as the defendant used his position to place himself into a situation where he could engage in sexual acts with a vulnerable young woman. The court also found that the McClean factors weigh in favor of admissibility, noting the acts on the beach were similar in nature to the acts directed at the alleged victim in the Florida case insofar as unwanted touching of a sexual nature, and both young women were in a position of practical subordination to Payne and as such vulnerable to his influences. The court further noted both knew Payne from school where he was a police officer, both put their trust in him as an authority figure over them, and, according to both of their testimony, he betrayed that trust by engaging in inappropriate and/or criminal sexual acts with them both.
The court found that the collateral crime evidence the state wishes to introduce is very relevant, and that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Accordingly, the court overruled the defendant’s objection to the state’s first Williams Rule notice.
Court rules prosecution cannot introduce evidence of 2022 incident involving legislative employee:
While the court is allowing the state to introduce the collateral crime evidence relating to grooming the alleged victim in the Florida case and the 2005 beach incident, it found that the McClean factors do not weigh in favor of admissibility for the alleged prior incident claimed by one of Payne’s former legislative employees from St. Thomas.
Dene Dessuit, a woman in her 20s who started working for Payne in 2021, filed a sexual harassment complaint against Payne that led to his expulsion from the Legislature on July 20, 2022. She later filed a civil lawsuit in Superior Court, accusing Payne of assault and false imprisonment for allegedly locking her in his King’s Alley Hotel room and brandishing a firearm on February 28, 2022 after attending a Senate committee meeting the same day on St. Croix.
READ MORE: Former-Sen. Payne staffer files civil lawsuit; includes Legislature, Sen. Frett-Gregory in suit
On August 15, the Dessuit, through her attorney, Kareem Todman, filed a motion urging the court to rule on three outstanding motions that remain pending.
The court noted differences between the Florida case and the allegations during the stay at the St. Croix hotel, including the fact that the alleged victim in the Florida case was a minor, the alleged conduct in the hotel was not at all similar as there was no unwanted touching, and the alleged conduct in the hotel occurred about three to four years after the acts claimed in the Florida case. Based on the totality of the circumstances, and considering the McClean factors, the court sustained the defendant’s objection to the state’s second Williams Rules notice.
