MARK ALLEN NORRIS, 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.
Appellant's conviction for burglary and sexual battery was affirmed where he failed to preserve his suppression argument at trial and could not demonstrate prejudice from a discovery violation regarding witness testimony.
A defendant's failure to raise a suppression argument at trial waives the argument on appeal, and a discovery violation regarding witness testimony is harmless where the defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice.
[1] Failure to raise a suppression argument at trial, including failure to file a motion to suppress or object when evidence is offered, waives the argument on appeal.
[2] A discovery violation regarding witness testimony is harmless error where the defendant cannot demonstrate prejudice and the trial court has conducted a proper Richardson…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of burglary and sexual battery. He made admissions to law enforcement officers and the state called witnesses at trial who had…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Chief Judge.
Appellant challenges his conviction for burglary and sexual battery. We affirm.
Appellant raises two points in his appeal. Neither has merit. In his first point, he argues that the alleged illegality of his arrest renders his subsequent admissions to law enforcement officers inadmissible. That issue was not raised in the trial court. There was no trial court motion to suppress and he did not object when the admissions were offered and admitted into evidence. Appellant’s failure to object and present the issue at trial waives this argument. In any event, there is no evidence in the record that supports appellant’s argument that he had been improperly detained at the time he made these admissions.
Appellant’s second point concerns an alleged discovery violation that occurred when the court allowed the testimony of certain witnesses who were not listed by the state in pretrial discovery. The record reflects, and appellant concedes, that the trial judge conducted a hearing pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla.1971), prior to admitting the testimony of the two witnesses. Appellant was not able to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the state’s failure to previously disclose the names of the witnesses. No error has been demonstrated in the trial court ruling that resulted from the Richardson hearing.
Affirmed.
HALL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Safari McELROY v. State, 100 So. 3d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…y argument it presented for admissibility of the statements was as verbal acts. Because the State did not assert the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule in the trial court, it may not assert that exception in this court. See Norris v. State, 554 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, the trial court having erred in denying the dispositive motion in limine, we reverse McElroy’s conviction for possession of cocaine and remand with directions to discharge him. Reversed and remanded with directions…
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)