AVRAHM ASSIAG, 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.
Defendant was convicted of sexual battery and lewd assault on a child after two expert witnesses improperly vouched for the victim's credibility. The court held that without a timely objection, such unobjected-to improper testimony does not constitute fundamental error justifying reversal absent other cumulative errors.
The court held that improper expert testimony vouching for a witness's credibility, when unobjected to at trial, does not alone constitute fundamental error requiring reversal absent other cumulative errors affecting substantial rights.
[1] A reviewing court may reverse a judgment based on an erroneous ruling admitting evidence only when a substantial right is adversely affected and a timely objection appear…
[2] When evidence is admitted without objection, there is generally no specific or express ruling by the trial court as to its admissibility, and thus no error justifying rev…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Section 90.104(3) provides that nothing in that section precludes an appellate court from taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantial rights even though those errors were not brought to the attention of the trial judge.”
Establishes the exception to the contemporaneous objection requirement for fundamental errors
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAssiag was convicted of sexual battery and lewd and lascivious assault upon a child. During trial, two psychological experts testified, with Dr. Towns…
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 Vouching For Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The issue in this case is whether the testimony of doctors testifying in a sex case and vouching for the credibility of the victim constituted such fundamental error as to justify reversal in the absence of a timely objection to the evidence and an erroneous trial court ruling admitting the evidence.
The defendant was convicted of two sex crimes.1 During the trial, two of the State’s psychological experts improperly2 vouched for the credibility of the victim.3 The defendant did not make a contemporaneous objection to the improper testimony and the sole issue we address is whether the failure to make a proper objection bars appellate review of this error in admitting evidence.
Consistent with the usual law on this point, section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a court may reverse a judgment on the basis of an erroneous ruling admitting evidence when a substantial right is adversely affected and a timely objection appears on the record stating the specific ground of objection if the specific ground is not apparent from the context. When there is no objection to admitted evidence, not only is the specific ground not specified as the rule requires but, more fundamentally, there is usually no specific or express ruling by the trial court as to the admissibility of the evidence, and if there is no ruling, there is no error by the trial court justifying reversal on appeal.
Section 90.104(3) provides that nothing in that section precludes an appellate court from taking notice of fundamental errors affecting substantial rights even though those errors were not brought to the attention of the trial judge. The defendant in this case contends that the error in the admissibility into evidence of the doctors’ testimony vouching for the credibility of the victim, is fundamental, citing Fuller v. State, 540 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In Fuller, this court held that in a sexual battery case, unobjected to testimony of an expert vouching for the truthfulness of a witness along with inflammatory prosecutorial argument and attack on the defense counsel and inadequate notice of use of hearsay testimony, resulted in cumulative error so fundamental as to require reversal. We view Fuller as a “cumulative error” case in which one of the many errors was admission into evidence of the testimony of an expert vouching for credibility of a witness which error was not the subject for a proper objection. Fuller does not hold that the improperly admitted testimony vouching for a victim’s veracity, though not objected to, will always and alone constitute fundamental error requiring reversal. In this case, we do not find the improper testimony, entered without objection, alone constitutes fundamental error, nor do we find other invidious and harmful trial errors which combine with the improper, but unobjected to, testimony so as to constitute fundamental error requiring reversal. Accordingly, the defendant’s convictions are
AFFIRMED.
COBB, W. SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur. . Sexual battery (§ 794.011(5), Fla.Stat.) and lewd and lascivious assault upon a child (§ 800.-04(2), Fla.Stat.).
. See Tingle v. State, 536 So. 2d 202 (Fla.1988); Davis v. State, 527 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Norris v. State, 525 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
. Dr. Townsend stated, “There’s no question in my mind that she [the victim] was raped and was seeking help for that” and Dr. Jones testified that the victim did not make things up and that the victim’s personality was not consistent with someone who would make up a sexual battery story.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gesner Pierre v. State, 597 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…g from the same witness testimony that the child victim was the kind of child who would lie to get her way. See Glendening v. State, 536 So. 2d 212, 221 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3219, 106 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989); Assiag v. State, 565 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); cf. Preston v. State, 528 So. 2d 896, 899 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1072, 109 S.Ct. 1356, 103 L.Ed.2d 824 (1989); Ellison v. State, 349 So. 2d 731, 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 357 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1978). As to…
-
Smith v. State, 674 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…ecessary objections and may even have invited improper testimony. Without a specific objection, the general rule is that the issue was not preserved for appellate review and therefore is waived. Glendening, 536 So. 2d at 221; accord Assiag v. State, 565 So. 2d 387, 388 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Noras v. State, 503 So. 2d 911, 911-12 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). Nevertheless, we reverse and remand for a new trial because we hold that Smith did not receive a fair trial. The only properly admitted substantive evidence of abu…
-
McQUIRK v. State, 667 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…unsel never made specific, contemporaneous objections to the rulings of the trial court. Thus, they were not preserved for appeal. Further, we hold that the trial court committed no fundamental error in this sexual battery case. See Assiag v. State, 565 So. 2d 387, 388 (Fla. 5th DCA1990) (holding that issue of whether trial court allowed two psychological experts to improperly vouch for credibility of sex crime victim was not preserved for appellate review by specific, contemporaneous objection at trial); see…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tingle v. State, 536 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1988)
- Fuller v. State, 540 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Norris v. State, 525 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Reedy v. State, 527 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Micky Dale Davis v. State, 527 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)