DENNIS GERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Dennis German appealed his armed robbery conviction, claiming that evidence of collateral crimes was improperly admitted. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that German failed to preserve the issue for appeal by not contemporaneously objecting to the evidence at trial, despite filing a pretrial motion in limine.
The court did not reach the merits of whether the collateral crimes evidence was improperly admitted because the defendant failed to preserve the question for appeal by not making a contemporaneous objection when the evidence was introduced at trial.
[1] Failure to contemporaneously object to the admission of evidence at trial waives appellate review of the issue, even if a pre-trial motion to suppress was denied.
[2] A motion for mistrial made at the close of all the evidence is untimely to preserve for appeal an objection to evidence admitted earlier.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Failure to renew an objection at trial contemporaneously with admission of the contested evidence constitutes a waiver of the right to appellate review of an alleged error, even though issues of constitutional dimension are claimed to exist.”
Establishes the rule that contemporaneous objection is required to preserve appellate review, even for constitutional issues.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGerman was convicted of armed robbery. Prior to trial, he filed a motion in limine to suppress evidence of collateral crimes, which the trial court de…
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 Collateral Crime Evidence Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
Defendant appeals a conviction of armed robbery. The only point with possible merit is that evidence of a collateral crime was improperly admitted in evidence. However, we do not reach this issue because we find that appellant failed to adequately preserve the question for appeal.
Appellant filed a pre-trial motion in li-mine in an attempt to suppress certain collateral crimes evidence. The trial court denied the motion immediately prior to trial. Appellant did not object to the admission of this testimony at the time of its introduction at trial, although he did move for a mistrial at the close of all the evidence.
In Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978) cert. den. 364 So. 2d 891 (Fla.1978), the Third District held that the appellant waived review of the denial of his motion to suppress statements made while in police custody, by failing to timely object to the admission of this evidence at trial. Similarly, the Court held in Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978), that the appellant’s failure to contemporaneously object to a medical examiner’s testimony waived appellate review of the issue, even though a pretrial motion to suppress had been made. See also Kiddy v. State, 378 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In this regard, the Jones Court stated:
Failure to renew an objection at trial contemporaneously with admission of the contested evidence constitutes a waiver of the right to appellate review of an alleged error, even though issues of constitutional dimension are claimed to exist.
360 So. 2d at 1296.
The necessity of a contemporaneous objection was reaffirmed by the Florida Supreme Court in Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978), in which the Court held that in order to preserve appellate review of a prosecutor’s comment on the defendant’s right to remain silent, the defendant must object and move for a mistrial.
In the instant cause, appellant failed to object to the collateral crimes testimony when it was admitted into evidence. Although he did move for a mistrial, the motion was untimely coming as it did at the close of all the evidence. As noted by this Court in Barrett v. State, 266 So. 2d 373, 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972):
The accused in a criminal proceeding is not entitled to the privilege of refraining from making timely objection to matters felt to be prejudicial, and then waiting until the relative strength of the prosecution and defense presentations can be evaluated before raising a cry of prejudice.
See also Owens v. State, 349 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) cert. dism. 353 So. 2d 677 (Fla.1978).
Accordingly, the conviction is affirmed.
BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Correll v. State, 523 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1988)…e testimony at trial. Even when a prior motion in limine has been denied, the failure to object at the time collateral crime evidence is introduced waives the issue for appellate review. Phillips v. State, 476 So. 2d 194 (Fla.1985); German v. State, 379 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 1980). Moreover, even if an objection had been made, the testimony was sufficiently relevant to show that Correll had demonstrated hostility toward Susan on the night of the murders by slashing her…
-
Phillips v. State, 476 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 1985)…rs. The trial court denied appellant’s motion in li-mine as it related to that shooting. However, appellant failed to object when the collateral crimes testimony was admitted and thus did not preserve the issue for appellate review. German v. State, 379 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1113 (1980). Even assuming proper objection had been made, evidence of the prior shooting was relevant to prove motivation and intent. § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1983). See also Herzog v. State, 439 So. 2d 1…
-
Hubbard v. State, 411 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…d to commit himself prior to the verdict as to those errors which he views as sufficient for appeal, an important point, as held in Owens v. State, 349 So. 2d 197, 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. dismissed, 353 So. 2d 677 (Fla.1978), German v. State, 379 So. 2d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), and Barrett v. State, 266 So. 2d 373, 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972): The accused in a criminal proceeding is not entitled to the privilege of refraining from making timely objection to matters felt to be prejudicial, and then w…
Previewing 3 of 13 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)
- Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Blowers v. Williams, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Barrett v. State, 266 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Kiddy v. State, 378 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Owens v. State, 349 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)