WALKER DAVIS, JR., 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.
The appellate court affirmed a conviction for first-degree murder, holding that the defendant waived his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress his confession because he failed to object when the confession was admitted at trial. Without the suppressed confession, the defendant argued he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal, but this argument also failed due to the procedural default.
The appellate court held that the issues regarding the denial of the motion to suppress and the admission of the statements were not preserved for appellate review because no objection was made at trial when the evidence was admitted. Consequently, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a judgment of acquittal.
[1] A defendant must make a contemporaneous objection at trial to the admission of evidence to preserve for appellate review an issue concerning the denial of a pretrial moti…
[2] Failure to object at trial to the admission of statements, even after a pretrial motion to suppress has been denied, waives the issue for appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“the issues regarding the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress and the admission into evidence of his statements were not preserved for appellate review because no objection was made during trial when this evidence was admitted.”
Establishes the primary reason for affirming the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker Davis, Jr. was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder. He made statements to the police, which he later sought to suppress via a pretri…
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 Contemporaneous Objection Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Walker Davis, Jr., was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. He contends on appeal that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress his confession and statements made to police and that, without that evidence, he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal. We affirm. We also affirm, without discussion, the remaining points raised on appeal.
As the State argues in its brief, the issues regarding the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress and the admission into evidence of his statements were not preserved for appellate review because no objection was made during trial when this evidence was admitted.
The trial court denied appellant’s pretrial motion to suppress the statements and, to preserve these arguments for appellate review, appellant had to object at trial when the statements were admitted. See Schwarck v. State, 568 So. 2d 1326, 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (affirming conviction for sexual battery on person under 12 and indicating that defendant failed to preserve issue concerning admission of his incriminating statements, which trial court had found were made freely and voluntarily after Miranda warnings were given, because defendant failed to raise contemporaneous objection at trial); Rounds v. State, 382 So. 2d 775, 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (affirming judgment of conviction and sentence for manslaughter because “the defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the admissibility of the defendant’s statements to the police as he did not object at trial to the admission of such statements subsequent to the denial of his pretrial motion to suppress”).
Given the admission of these statements into evidence, together with other evidence presented by the State, the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Although we have noted appellant’s failure to preserve the suppression issue for appellate review, we do not in any way imply that the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress.
AFFIRMED.
WOLF, KAHN and PADOVANO, JJ., concur
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Schwarck v. State, 568 So. 2d 1326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Rounds v. State, 382 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)