STEWART
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.
Appellant failed to preserve a sufficiency challenge under section 90.803(23) and a balancing test challenge under section 90.403 because his trial court objections did not assert the specific legal grounds required by those statutes.
[1] To preserve an evidentiary challenge for appeal, a party must raise the specific statutory grounds for the objection at trial; a general argument that evidence is unrelia…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“argument to trial court that statements were unreliable, without 'assert[ing] that the trial court's findings were legally insufficient,' fails to preserve a sufficiency challenge under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes”
Court explaining the requirement for preserving evidentiary challenges under the hearsay exception statute
Marcus Wayne Stewart appealed a conviction from Bay County Circuit Court. The appeal involved challenges to the admission of certain statements and ev…
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 Fla. Stat. § 90.403 Balancing Test cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
No. 1D2024-2366
MARCUS WAYNE STEWART, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.
April 15, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Coleman v. State, 315 So. 3d 166, 168 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (concluding that argument to trial court that statements were unreliable, without "assert[ing] that the trial court's findings were legally insufficient," fails to preserve a sufficiency challenge under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes); Bass v. State, 35 So. 3d 43, 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Reynolds v. State, 660 So. 2d 778, 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)) (finding section 90.403 challenge unpreserved where objection in trial court addressed bolstering, prior consistent statements, and cumulativeness but did not raise the balancing test under section 90.403).
ROBERTS, WINOKUR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, Tallahassee, and Kevin P. Steiger, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Darcy Townsend, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reynolds v. State, 660 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Bass v. State, 35 So. 3d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)