DALE LYNN CAMPBELL, 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.
Dale Lynn Campbell appeals his conviction for attempted sexual battery of a mentally defective victim under Florida law. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Campbell's arguments on appeal regarding the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal were not properly preserved and that he was not entitled to a new trial based on allegedly withheld witness testimony.
The court affirmed the denial of both motions. Campbell's argument on appeal regarding the motion for judgment of acquittal was not properly preserved because it differed from the grounds raised at trial. Additionally, the alleged withheld witness testimony would not have been admissible under section 794.022(2), Florida Statutes, because it did not establish specific instances of prior consensual sexual activity or a pattern of conduct relevant to consent.
[1] An argument not raised in a motion for judgment of acquittal at trial is not preserved for appellate review.
[2] A defendant is not entitled to a new trial based on the State's alleged failure to disclose witnesses whose testimony would not have been admissible under the relevant st…
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 intelligence“Since the argument asserted by Campbell on appeal was not raised in his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's case at trial, it has not been properly preserved and may not be considered by this court on appeal.”
Establishes that appellate arguments must be preserved at trial by raising them in the appropriate motions.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCampbell was charged with attempted sexual battery under Florida Statutes section 794.011(4)(e), which applies when the victim is mentally defective a…
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 Disclosure Of Witnesses cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Dale Lynn Campbell, appeals a final judgment adjudicating him guilty of attempted sexual battery pursuant to section 794.011(4)(e), Florida Statutes. That subsection provides:
(4) A person who commits sexual battery upon a person 12 years of age or older, without that person’s consent, under any of the following circumstances is guilty of a felony of the first degree....
(e) When the victim is mentally defective and the offender has reason to believe this or has actual knowledge of this fact.
Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously denied both his motion for judgment of acquittal and his motion for new trial. We disagree, and affirm the denial of both motions.
Initially, we find that the argument raised in appellant’s brief as to the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal has not been properly preserved for appellate review by this court. The record on appeal demonstrates that appellant moved for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case at trial, based on two specific grounds: (1) that the evidence showed that the victim had consented to have intercourse with Campbell, and (2) that there was no evidence that Campbell had knowledge that the victim was mentally defective.
On appeal, however, appellant’s assertion that the trial court erroneously denied his motion for judgment of acquittal rests on an entirely different basis. Campbell now argues that the State was required to present evidence that the victim was not capable of appreciating the nature of her sexual conduct. Since it failed to do so, according to Campbell, it also failed to establish that the victim’s consent was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Consequently, Campbell argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal. Since the argument asserted by Campbell on appeal was not raised in his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State’s case at trial, it has not been properly preserved and may not be considered by this court on appeal. G.W.B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Sanderson v. State, 390 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Appellant next argues that he is entitled to a new trial, on the basis that the State failed to disclose the names of two witnesses who allegedly had knowledge of the victim’s prior sexual conduct. Appellant contends that the testimony of the witnesses would have been admissible under section 794.022(2), Florida Statutes. We affirm this point as well. First, it appears from the record that only one of the two witnesses, Ms. McDade, contacted the Sheriff and prosecutor after defendant’s arrest. There is no indication in the record that the prosecutor or Sheriff had any knowledge of the other witness, Ms. Boyett, prior to trial. Second, Ms. McDade’s testimony establishes no “specific instances of prior consensual sexual activity” between the victim and another person, nor does it establish a “pattern of conduct or behavior on the part of the victim which is so similar to the conduct or behavior in the case that it is relevant to the issue of consent.” Section 794.022(2), Florida Statutes. Therefore, her testimony would not have been admissible under that section.
Accordingly, appellant’s conviction and sentence are hereby affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morales v. State, 170 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ther elements of sexual battery); Showers v. State, 570 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding a motion for judgment of acquittal without any specific argument insufficient to preserve claim of lack of evidence to support crime); Campbell v. State, 553 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (explaining defendant not permitted to raise a new issue on appeal that was not specifically preserved in a motion for judgment of acquittal). It is very clear that the Florida Supreme Court’s precedent as well as our own establi…
-
Meyers v. State, 673 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…argument advanced on appeal was not presented to the trial court by motion for judgment of acquittal, the aggravated battery conviction and sentence are affirmed.* See Hardwick v. State, 630 So. 2d 1212, 1213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Campbell v. State, 553 So. 2d 184,185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Affirmed. * No challenge is made to the remaining counts of which defendant was convicted.…
Authorities Cited
- G. W. B. v. State, 340 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Sanderson v. State, 390 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)