## Facts

- Danilo Jesus Bobillo was shot and killed in the parking lot of the Apache Bar and Grill in the Concord Shopping Plaza.
- The shooting arose from a parking-lot altercation between Bobillo and his friends (bar patrons) and the driver of a Camaro whose exit was allegedly blocked.
- There was conflicting evidence whether Bobillo and a friend attempted to prevent the Camaro from leaving; the friend displayed a concealed gun, and the Camaro’s driver shot Bobillo and wounded the friend.
- The decedent’s estate sued the bar and the property owner for negligent failure to provide adequate security, alleging patrons regularly and drunkenly spilled into the parking lot and no security was provided.
- The trial court denied a motion in limine seeking to bar suggestions that the decedent was a gang member, and the trial featured repeated “gang” references and testimony implying prior criminal conduct by the decedent and his companions.
- A jury verdict and final judgment awarded damages to the estate; the estate appealed, arguing the evidentiary rulings permitted extensive, prejudicial character attacks.

## Issues

1. Whether, in a negligent-security civil action, the trial court erred by admitting evidence and argument implying the decedent’s gang membership, prior criminal behavior, and bad character to suggest he acted in conformity with that character during the incident.
2. Whether the repeated use of such character evidence was sufficiently prejudicial to require reversal and a new trial on liability and damages.

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the final judgment.
- The court held the admission and emphasis of character evidence (including “gang” references and suggested prior criminal conduct) was improper in this civil negligent-security case.
- The case was remanded for a new trial on both liability and damages.

## Legal Principles

- In civil actions, character evidence is generally inadmissible to prove conduct in conformity with that character on a particular occasion.
- Florida’s character-evidence rules (including § 90.404(1)–(2), Fla. Stat.) bar using prior bad acts or character labels to argue that a person likely behaved consistently with an alleged bad character at the time of the event.
- In negligent-security cases, defendants may not shift the trial from foreseeability and security measures to collateral attacks on the victim’s character; such use of character evidence is reversible error when it becomes a focal point and risks misleading the jury.

## Conclusion

The appellate court ordered a new trial because the defense’s repeated “gang member” theme and related bad-character evidence improperly invited the jury to decide fault based on the decedent’s alleged character rather than the defendants’ alleged failure to provide adequate security.


Garcia v. Konckier, 771 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)