TAVARES NEWMAN, 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 the defendant's hearsay objection was not preserved for appeal because it was not raised at trial, and even if it were, it would not constitute fundamental error.
The defendant was convicted of sexual battery and false imprisonment with a firearm. During the trial, the victim's doctor testified about statements …
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 Prior Consistent Statement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Tavares Newman (the “defendant”), appeals his convictions for sexual battery with a firearm and false imprisonment with a firearm, claiming that certain admitted testimony violated hearsay principles. We affirm the conviction, finding no violation occurred.
In the disputed testimony, the victim’s doctor testified that the victim made statements during the examination supporting the victim’s testimony at trial that the defendant was armed while committing the crimes. The defendant contends that this testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay because it brought in a prior consistent statement of the victim’s which did not recount facts told to the doctor to facilitate treatment or diagnosis. The defendant claims that by admitting the testimony, the victim’s credibility was improperly bolstered, thereby creating reversible error. We disagree.
The defendant’s assertion of error is invalid because, by failing to object to the testimony at the time it was entered, the defendant failed to preserve this point for appeal. Groover v. State, 489 So. 2d 15 (Fla.1986); Dixon v. State, 592 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Gonzalez v. State, 571 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), rev. denied, 584 So. 2d 998 (Fla.1991). Furthermore, even if the admission was an error, it does not rise to the level of fundamental error because the testimony is cumulative and a substantial amount of other evidence points to the victim’s credibility. See Larkins v. State, 655 So. 2d 95 (Fla.1995); State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986). In the absence of reversible error, we affirm the defendant’s convictions.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charvester Anthony v. State, 854 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…By failing to object at the revocation hearing, Anthony failed to preserve the issue and he waived his right to claim on appeal that the evidence was erroneously admitted. See Green v. State, 711 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Newman v. State, 676 So. 2d 40, 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Additionally, based on all of the evidence contained in the record, any error does not rise to the level of fundamental error. See Newman, 676 So. 2d at 41. Because it is unclear from the record whether the trial court would…
-
State v. Pipkin, 927 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…timony as the issue is not preserved for review. See Jalbert v. State, 95 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1957)(any error in admitting allegedly hearsay testimony could not be considered on appeal where such error was not objected to during trial); Newman v. State, 676 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(where the defendant did not object to hearsay testimony at time it was entered during trial, the defendant waived issue for appellate review). . Under Florida law, driving under the influence is not a felony. State v. Furr, 723 S…
-
K.S. v. R.C., 766 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…0). However, unless hearsay objections are made below, they are not preserved and thus are waived. In the Interest of J.O., J.M.O., S.O. and E.A., 722 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); State v. Anton, 700 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Newman v. State, 676 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d [*1226] DCA 1996). Thus, I conclude there was sufficient clear and convincing evidence (although much was hearsay and secondhand) to support termination of K.S.’ parental rights. The litany of K.S.’ defects as a parent vis-a-vis A.S., and…
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
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Larkins v. State, 655 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1995)
- Gonzalez v. State, 571 So. 2d 1346 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Groover v. State, 489 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1986)
- Dixon v. State, 592 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)