BRACEY BAGGETT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed a burglary and grand larceny conviction where the defendant claimed error in the prosecutor eliciting testimony about his invocation of the right to remain silent, but found the issue waived due to failure to object or move for mistrial at trial.
A defendant waives the right to challenge testimony regarding invocation of the right to remain silent by failing to object or move for mistrial when the testimony is first introduced.
[1] A defendant waives appellate review of allegedly improper testimony by failing to object or move for mistrial when the testimony is introduced at trial.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Baggett was arrested for burglary of a van and grand larceny. The arresting officer testified twice—once during the State's case and once on…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The point presented on this appeal urges error upon a contention that the trial court “permitted the prosecutor” to elicit testimony in a criminal prosecution for (1) burglary of a conveyance (a 1967 Chevrolet Van) and (2) grand larceny (miscellaneous items of personal property), where the defendant had invoked his right to remain silent at the time of his arrest. The record shows that two statements were made by the arresting officer, one during the State’s case and the other on rebuttal. The arresting officer first stated that the defendant was read his Miranda rights and then made the statement that he “ . . . hadn’t broken out the window, but that he would wait and make further statements in court.” Neither an objection nor a motion for mistrial was made. Then, on rebuttal, the officer further testified: “He just said that they had done it and they would answer any further questions in court.” Again, there was no objection or motion for mistrial.
We need not reach the question of whether the second part of each statement was the proper subject for a mistrial because of the failure to urge error in the trial court. See the recent consolidated opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in Clark v. State and State v. Bostic, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978).
Affirmed.