PAYTON LATARIO ROLLE
v.
VIERGENA KATIE JOSEPH
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.
Payton Latario Rolle appeals a permanent injunction for protection against stalking issued by the trial court. Rolle argues that key evidence was improperly admitted as hearsay or was otherwise inadmissible. The Third District Court of Appeal affirms the injunction, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's evidentiary rulings and confirming the record contains sufficient evidence of stalking under Florida law.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the text messages because the information contained therein was known only to Rolle, meeting the authentication requirement. The trial court properly sustained objections to evidence of post-stalking conduct. The record contains multiple instances of harassment and stalking as defined by statute, providing competent substantial evidence to support the permanent injunction.
[1] Appellate review of a trial court's evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion.
[2] To preserve an error for appellate review, a contemporaneous, specific objection is generally required.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“To preserve error for appellate review, the general rule requires that a contemporaneous, specific objection occur at the time of the alleged error.”
Establishes that Rolle failed to preserve many of his evidentiary objections by not objecting contemporaneously at trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRolle was the subject of a petition for a permanent injunction for protection against stalking filed by Viergena Katia Joseph. The trial court admitte…
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 Abuse Of Discretion Standard For Evidentiary Rulings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Payton Latario Rolle appeals a final judgment and permanent injunction for protection against stalking. Rolle argues that much of the key evidence constituted improper hearsay or was otherwise improperly considered by the trial court. Rolle argues that without such improperly admitted evidence, the trial court had no basis to enter the permanent injunction. Based on a thorough review, we affirm.
We generally review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. See Walker v. Harley-Anderson, 301 So. 3d 299, 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) ("Review of a trial court's determination regarding the authentication of evidence is for an abuse of discretion."). And we review “[t]he trial court's order granting a permanent injunction... for competent substantial evidence" but we review de novo “the question of whether the evidence is legally sufficient to justify imposing an injunction.” Sutton v. Fowler, 332 So. 3d 1001, 1004 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (quotations omitted).
As a threshold matter, many of the objections Rolle raises in his appeal were not preserved by contemporaneous objection. Overton v. State, 976 So. 2d 536, 547 (Fla. 2007) (“To preserve error for appellate review, the general rule requires that a contemporaneous, specific objection occur at the time of the alleged error."). In examining the main, preserved objection to the introduction of text messages, the trial court correctly overruled Rolle's objection to the authenticity of the messages. “Circumstances recognized as sufficient to meet the test of authenticity include when a letter is written disclosing information which is likely known only to the purported author." State v. Love, 691 So. 2d 620, 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Here, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the text messages because the information contained therein was known only to Rolle. To the extent Rolle challenges that he sent the messages, the trial court correctly stated on the record that such matters are better addressed by cross examination (or the presentation of contradictory testimony).1
Rolle also claims that the trial court erred in considering matters that occurred after the time of the alleged stalking. But a review of the transcript shows that the trial court sustained the objections pertaining to such evidence. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence, and because the record contains multiple instances of harassment
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Love, 691 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Kendria Walker v. Tayla Harley-Anderson, 301 So. 3d 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
- MacDONALD v. Dep't OF Child. & Families & Caren MacDonald, 855 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)