ANDREW BURNETT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that a general objection to testimony is insufficient to preserve the issue for appellate review.
Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell after police observed him in a suspected drug transaction. The defendant testifie…
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 Rebuttal Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine with intent to sell and found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to twenty years incarceration followed by ten years of probation. He appeals his conviction and sentence claiming error in the admission of certain testimony. We affirm.
Two police officers on patrol in a Key West neighborhood saw the defendant engaged in what appeared to them to be a narcotics transaction. The officers testified that, as they approached, they observed defendant drop what was later established, by testing, to be crack cocaine. The defendant took the stand in his own behalf and testified that he had just completed the purchase of “two caps” from one Orlando, then fled as police officers whom he said he had never seen before approached him. Defendant claimed he had fled from the officers because he feared they were criminals who frequented the same area. On rebuttal, the officers were permitted to testify, over several defense counsel objections, each failing to state the grounds for objection, that the defendant knew them from defendant’s previous arrests in which the officers had participated. The defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the admission of such testimony prejudiced him by improperly allowing evidence of previous bad character. The state argues the evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming and that the defendant’s testimony opened the door for rebuttal.
It is unnecessary for us to address either claim because in the instant case the defendant’s general objection failed to preserve the matter for review. Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla.1985) (specific legal ground or argument must be presented in the trial court to preserve for appellate review).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence under review are affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Neal v. State, 697 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ement agencies, state attorney’s office, schools, armed forces, the prison system, relatives of the defendant, witnesses in the case, and marriage and name change records. See State v. Mack, 637 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). . Currie v. State, 605 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), casts some doubt on the viability of the notion that prison escape by itself cannot excuse the untimely service of criminal process. The Currie court, however, perceived no conflict with Fleming v. State, 524 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 1s…
-
McNEIL v. State, 673 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ht v. State, 600 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (single visit and single letter to defendant’s house not diligent search); Chapman v. State, 581 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (only one attempt to serve capias insufficient). Compare Currie v. State, 605 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (two-year delay between filing information for escape and [*127] the service of capias upon defendant’s recapture not unreasonable where state presented evidence on defendant’s intentional and successful elusion of state custody).…
-
Newman v. State, 707 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ed no evidence to explain the four-year delay in executing the capias, this court held that the motion to dismiss should have been granted. Id. at 1147.1 We are unable to distinguish Fleming from this case. Respondent’s reliance on Currie v. State, 605 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) is misplaced. That decision specifically distinguished Fleming as having been decided on the state’s failure to present evidence at a hearing. Although the Currie opinion does not describe the hearing held in the trial court, it m…
Authorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)