RAYMOND CRESPO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Williams Rule Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals contending that the admission of certain Williams Rule evidence of other crimes was improper and requires reversal of his conviction below. We affirm.
The transcript of testimony discloses that no adequate objection to the testimony in question was made. Defendant did file a motion in limine regarding this testimony which was denied prior to trial. The rule requiring a contemporaneous objection at trial under such circumstances is firmly established. Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); O’Berry v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). We are thus unable to consider defendant’s arguments unless the admission of the evidence in question constituted fundamental error. We conclude that such is not the case. Marion v. State, 287 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Also see Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978). We thus conclude that the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error and the judgment and conviction below is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
BERANEK, HERSEY and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 599 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…a point for appeal. See Holley v. State, 523 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Objections which are not timely made are waived. Roundtree v. State, 362 So. 2d 1347 (Fla.1978) and Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). In Crespo v. State, 379 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. den., 388 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1981), the Fourth DCA determined that it was “unable to consider” the appellant/defendant’s assertion of error in the admission of Williams Rule evidence due to his failure to make a contemporane…
-
Swan v. Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 404 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…l cases appears not to have been addressed by any appellate court in Florida. The rule requiring a contemporaneous objection at trial to the introduction of allegedly inadmissible testimony is firmly established in criminal law. In Crespo v. State, 379 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1981), the appellant’s motion in limine was denied pri- or to trial, and appellant did not object at trial to the introduction of testimony initially sought to be excluded. The court concluded…
-
Lewis v. State, 623 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…gain at trial. Correll v. State, 523 So. 2d 562 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 183, 102 L.Ed.2d 152 (1988); Phillips v. State, 476 So. 2d 194 (Fla.1985), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 3005, 125 L.Ed.2d 697 (1993); Crespo v. State, 379 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1980); German v. State, 379 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1113 (Fla.1980); cf. Holmes v. Mernah, 427 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (motion in limine denied immediately before…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- Blowers v. Williams, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Marion v. State, 287 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- O'Berry v. Louie L. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)