CLIFFORD ADEL PRICE, 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.
Clifford Adel Price appeals his conviction for one count of sexual battery and five counts of lewd assault on two young victims. The appellate court affirms his convictions and sentences, rejecting all contentions on appeal including his challenge to the admission of prior consistent statements.
The court affirms the conviction and sentences. Although the court does not decide whether the evidence was admissible under Florida Statute § 90.801(2)(b) or whether any error was harmless, it holds that because the defendant did not object at trial, the appellate court will not consider the issue absent fundamental error. The court found no fundamental error occurred.
[1] An appellate court will not consider an issue unless it was specifically raised as the legal basis for an objection in the trial court, absent a showing of fundamental er…
[2] Failure to object to the admission of evidence at trial generally waives the right to challenge that evidence on appeal, unless the error is fundamental.
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“Except in cases of fundamental error, we will not consider an issue unless it was specifically raised as the legal basis for the objection in the trial court.”
Establishes the preservation-of-error doctrine requiring specific objections at trial to preserve issues for appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePrice was charged with and found guilty of one count of sexual battery and one count of lewd assault on victim C.P., and four counts of lewd assault o…
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 Recent Fabrication cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Clifford Adel Price, challenges the judgments and sentences imposed upon him after he was found guilty of six felonies. We affirm.
The appellant was charged with, and found guilty of, one count of sexual battery and one count of lewd assault on C.P. He was also charged with, and found guilty of, four counts of lewd assault on B.N. Although we reject all of the appellant's contentions on appeal, we find that one of them merits discussion.
During the course of the appellant’s trial, the assistant state attorney announced that he intended to have witnesses testify concerning prior consistent statements made by both of the young victims. He took the position that the testimony was admissible to rebut a charge of recent fabrication. The appellant did not object, and the testimony was presented to the jury. The jury found the appellant guilty as charged, and he filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgments and sentences entered upon the jury verdicts.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred by admitting the prior consistent statements and that he is entitled to receive a new trial. We disagree. It is not necessary for us to decide if the evidence was admissible under section 90.801(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). See, e.g., Wise v. State, 546 So. 2d 1068 (Fla.2d DCA 1989); Bianchi v. State, 528 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Preston v. State, 470 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). It is also not necessary for us to decide if any error was harmless. See, e.g., Salter v. State, 500 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). When the state announced its intention to present the testimony, the appellant’s attorney stated that he was not going to make any objections and that if the assistant state attorney wanted to put such statements into evidence, it was “fine” with him. Except in cases of fundamental error, we will not consider an issue unless it was specifically raised as the legal basis for the objection in the trial court. Stone v. State, 547 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Washington v. State, 510 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Page v. State, 412 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In this case, the error, if any, was not fundamental. See Stone. See also Glendening v. State, 536 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1988); Ashford v. State, 274 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1973). Accordingly, since the appellant did not object to the admissibility of the statements and any error in admitting them would not constitute fundamental error, we affirm.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ogden v. State, 658 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ate, 536 So. 2d 212 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3219, 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1982); Diaz v. State, 618 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 626 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1993); Price v. State, 553 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), rev. denied, 564 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1990). Finally, we reject the balance of the remaining points on appeal raised by the defendant. There was clearly sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the crimes for which he was ch…
Authorities Cited
- Glendening v. State, 536 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 1988)
- Salter v. State, 500 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Ashford v. State, 274 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1973)
- Stone v. State, 547 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Preston v. State, 470 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Wise v. State, 546 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Bianchi v. State, 528 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Washington v. State, 510 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Page v. State, 412 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)