JEROME A. GIBSON, 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 defendant waived his Sixth Amendment confrontation clause argument by failing to properly object on that specific ground in the trial court.
The trial court allowed the use of a one-way mirror between the defendant and a 13-year-old victim-witness, to which the defendant objected only on th…
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 Chapman V. California Harmless Error Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The State suggests that we did not correctly apply Coy v. Iowa, — U.S.-, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988) to the facts of this case. Further review convinces us that the State’s position is correct, and we therefore grant rehearing, withdraw the original opinion in this case and substitute the following in its place.
At trial, the judge allowed the prosecution to place a one-way mirror in the courtroom between the defendant and the 13 year old victim-witness. Although the defendant objected, it was only on the basis that “[i]t might create, in the jury’s mind, an impression that she’s afraid of him.” The appellant’s only issue on appeal is the alleged error of the trial court in permitting the use of the screen. Although Coy had not been decided when this appeal was filed, appellant relies on it by way of supplemental authority.
In Coy v. Iowa, supra, the defendant objected to the placing of a screen between himself and the witness stand while the two 13 year old victim-witnesses were testifying, specifically arguing that this procedure violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. Although the Supreme Court agreed that the placement of the screen violated defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation, the court majority rejected the suggestion that the error was fundamental and per se reversible, and instead held that such violation of the Confrontation Clause was subject to the harmless error standard of Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed. 2d 705 (1967), reversing the judgment and remanding the case to the Iowa Supreme Court to determine the issue of harmless error. Constitutional errors which are not of a fundamental character are waived unless timely and properly objected to in the trial court. Ray v. State, 403 So. 2d 956, 960 (Fla.1981); Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331, 333 (Fla.1978). An error which may be categorized as harmless is not per se reversible, State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986), and may be waived if not objected to. In Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1982), the court held:
Except in cases of fundamental error, an appellate court will not consider an issue unless it is presented to the lower court ... Furthermore, in order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception or motion below. [Citations omitted].
Id. at 338. See also Sanderson v. State, 390 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
The objection that the jury might believe that the witness might be afraid of the defendant did not present to the trial court the issue of defendant’s right of confrontation, and that issue was therefore not preserved for appellate review. With the confrontation issue not properly raised in the trial court or before us for review, we cannot say that the trial court otherwise abused its discretion in permitting the use of the mirror. The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wallis v. State, 548 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…the courtroom outside the presence of the defendant under the authority of sections 92.53 and 92.54, Florida Statutes, should be carefully considered in the light of Coy v. Iowa, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988). See Gibson v. State, 533 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). (c) The State gave notice of its intent to use the testimony of each child as similar fact evidence to "corroborate" the testimony of each other child but the consolidation of the three cases involving each child rendered this i…
-
Clines v. State, 765 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). . Wilson v. State, 744 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); State v. Fuller, 463 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). . M.W. v. Davis, 756 So. 2d 90 (Fla.2000); Gibson v. State, 533 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).…
-
Sigmon v. State, 622 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…of face-to-face confrontation, are subject to harmless error analy [*60] sis. An error which may be categorized as harmless, however, may nevertheless be categorized as fundamental. State v. Clark, 614 So. 2d 453 (Fla.1992); but see Gibson v. State, 533 So. 2d 338, 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (an error which may be categorized as harmless may be waived if not objected to). Recent decisions of this court have certified to the Supreme Court the issue of whether the failure to make findings required under sections…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1982)
- Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1978)
- RAY v. State, 403 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1981)
- COY v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (U.S. 1988)
- Sanderson v. State, 390 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)