VICTOR WILLIAM CASTRO-MENDEZ
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Victor Williams Castro-Mendez was convicted of lewd or lascivious battery and molestation of minors. He appealed arguing that a child victim's hearsay statement from a Child Protective Team interview should have been excluded due to lack of notice and reliability findings under Florida law. The appellate court affirmed, finding the hearsay claim not preserved for appeal.
The hearsay claim was not preserved for appeal because Castro-Mendez failed to make a contemporaneous objection to the lack of notice or factual findings on reliability. A general hearsay objection is insufficient to preserve an issue regarding the legal sufficiency of the trial court's reliability findings for appellate review.
[1] A general hearsay objection is insufficient to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether a trial court made the required notice and specific factual findings reg…
[2] Failure to make a contemporaneous objection to the lack of notice or factual findings on the reliability of a child hearsay statement waives the issue for appeal.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“The hearsay claim is not preserved for appeal because Castro-Mendez failed to make a contemporaneous objection to the lack of notice or factual findings on the reliability of the child hearsay statement.”
Establishes the core ruling that failure to object specifically to notice and reliability findings forfeits the issue on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCastro-Mendez was tried for lewd or lascivious battery on a person between ages 12-16 and lewd or lascivious molestation on a person under 12. At tria…
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 Contemporaneous Objection Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Victor Williams Castro-Mendez appeals his convictions for lewd or lascivious battery on a person between the ages 12 and 16 and lewd or lascivious molestation on a person less than 12 years of age by a person over the age of 18. Among the State’s evidence at trial was a recording of the victim’s statement taken during a Child Protective Team interview. Castro-Mendez first argues the trial court erred by admitting this evidence in the absence of notice and specific factual findings that the victim’s hearsay statements were reliable as required by section 90.802(23), Florida Statutes (2019). We address this first argument and affirm on the second issue raised without further discussion.
The hearsay claim is not preserved for appeal because Castro-Mendez failed to make a contemporaneous objection to the lack of notice or factual findings on the reliability of the child hearsay statement. See Coleman v. State, 315 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (concluding that an objection to the legal sufficiency of the trial court’s findings on the reliability of a child hearsay statement is necessary to preserve the issue for review). Castro-Mendez’s general hearsay objection was not sufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review. AFFIRMED.
RAY, WINOKUR, and LONG JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Torie Germanyllashea Richardson v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…ted by a jury of sexual crimes he committed against a child. He argues on appeal the trial court made insufficient findings when it admitted child hearsay statements under section 90.803(23)(c), Florida Statutes (2020). We held in Coleman v. State, 315 So. 3d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), that to preserve this argument for appellate review, the trial court must be put on notice of the alleged deficiency after its ruling. Appellant concedes he did not make a sufficient objection under Coleman. Because this issue…