WINZER LEON THOMAS, 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.
The court held that the appellant failed to preserve the alleged error for review because he did not make a timely and specific objection at trial.
[1] A defendant must make a timely and specific objection to the introduction of evidence to preserve the alleged error for appellate review.
[2] A motion in limine alone is insufficient to preserve an alleged error for appellate review if no objection is made at trial when the evidence is offered.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of burglary. During cross-examination, the prosecutor questioned the appellant about a prior guilty plea where adjudicatio…
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 Timely Objection cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction in a burglary case. The question appellant asks for us to decide is an interesting one: can a witness’ credibility be impeached by eliciting testimony from him, or otherwise proving, that he had once pleaded guilty to a crime although adjudication of guilt had been withheld and he had been put on probation. Or, can the word “conviction” mean a finding of guilt, without an adjudication? It is without question that an adjudication of guilt would be a “conviction.” But can “conviction” also mean an order placing a person on probation?
As interesting as the question is and as much as we may want to discuss and decide it we cannot because the record reflects the appellant failed to preserve the alleged error by making a timely objection. Appellant did file a motion in limine to have the court prevent the prosecutor from bringing out the fact that he had entered a plea of guilty and had been put on probation in another case. But at trial, appellant failed to object to the introduction of testimony regarding the entry of the plea so he failed to preserve the alleged error for our review. Swan v. Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company, 404 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Crespo v. State, 379 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So. 2d 1111 (Fla.1981).
Appellant also complains about the court permitting the prosecutor to ask him during cross-examination about the nature of the charges to which he had pleaded guilty. A general objection to that question was made but no specific objection, setting out the grounds for the objection, was presented to the court so, again, appellant failed to preserve the alleged error for the record and our review. In order for us to fault a trial judge and overturn a judgment it must be shown that a specific and proper objection to the alleged inadmissible evidence is made and ruled upon, unless the error is “fundamental error.” Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); Hufham v. State, 400 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
AFFIRMED.
ORFINGER, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Javis L. Sims v. State, 839 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…to Nixon’s testimony and requested the trial court to not allow the anticipated impeachment, the defense did not make a contemporaneous objection during the actual impeachment. See Shaw v. State, 824 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Thomas v. State, 424 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). In addition, on re-direct examination Sims chose to have Nixon identify the nature of the crime (giving a police officer a false name) which the state had not elicited in its cross examination. This court cannot ascertain whethe…
-
Quinn v. State, 662 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…controlling the enterprise for the purposes of this rule chapter. . Anderson v. State, 546 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Woodson v. State, 483 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Gilling v. State, 443 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Thomas v. State, 424 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). . Lowe’s of Tallahassee v. Giaimo, 552 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Saul v. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 499 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). . See Conley v. State, 620 So. 2d 180 (Fla.1993). . State v. Di…
-
Gliszczynski v. State, 654 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ental error, and in order for argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below); accord Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 34-35 (Fla.1985); Thomas v. State, 424 So. 2d 193, 194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). This case does not involve fundamental error. Further, the testimony and evidence presented at trial provided a factual basis for the amount of restitution the court ordered. The amount was not egregious and was appropriate…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1978)
- Hufham v. State, 400 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Swan v. Fla. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 404 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Crespo v. State, 379 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)