MARVIN MORRELL, 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.
Marvin Morrell appealed his convictions for robbery, aggravated assault, and fraudulent use of a credit card, raising three claims regarding jury selection, witness testimony about a handgun, and hearsay evidence of a confession. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed all convictions, finding no merit in any of Morrell's arguments.
The court affirmed all convictions. Morrell failed to preserve the jury strike issue by accepting the venire without renewing his objection. Even if preserved, the strike was race-neutral and within the trial court's discretion. Morrell failed to preserve the handgun testimony issue by not objecting at trial, and the evidence was admissible under Florida Statutes § 90.404(2)(a) as relevant to opportunity and access to a firearm. The hearsay confession testimony was preserved but harmless error because the State cured it by questioning the detective, who testified Morrell did not confess.
[1] A defendant must renew an objection to a peremptory strike or make acceptance of the venire subject to the prior objection to preserve the issue for appeal.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion in ruling a peremptory strike reason is genuine and race-neutral if the issue is preserved.
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“Morrell failed to preserve this issue for appeal because he accepted the venire without renewing his objection or making that acceptance subject to his previous objection.”
Establishes the preservation requirement for jury strike claims—objection must be renewed or acceptance made conditional.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorrell was convicted of robbery, aggravated assault, and fraudulent use of a credit card. At trial, a witness testified she saw Morrell with a handgu…
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 Peremptory Strike cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marvin Morrell challenges his convictions for robbery, aggravated assault, and fraudulent use of credit card. We find no merit in his three claims.
First, Morrell claims that the trial court erred in allowing the State to peremptorily strike an African-American juror. Morrell failed to preserve this issue for appeal because he accepted the venire without renewing his objection or making that acceptance subject to his previous objection. See Franqui v. State, 699 So. 2d 1332, 1334 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, Florida v. Franqui, 523 U.S. 1040, 118 S.Ct. 1337, 140 L.Ed.2d 499, Franqui v. Florida, 523 U.S. 1097, 118 S.Ct. 1582, 140 L.Ed.2d 797 (1998); Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993). Moreover, if this issue were preserved, we would still conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the State’s reason for the peremptory strike was genuine and race-neutral. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759, 763-64 (Fla.1996).
Second, Morrell argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admit ting a witness’s testimony that she saw Morrell with a handgun in the months before the crimes. Again, Morrell failed to preserve this issue for appeal because, although he unsuccessfully moved in limine to exclude this testimony, he failed to object when the witness testified. See Lawrence v. State, 614 So. 2d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 1993); Correll v. State, 523 So. 2d 562, 566 (Fla.1988). Even if Morrell had objected, the testimony was relevant to more than Morrell’s bad character or propensity to commit a crime. See Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959). Section 90.404(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1997), allows the trial court to admit evidence of a defendant’s prior acts when it is relevant to prove a material fact such as opportunity, preparation, or plan. This evidence was admissible because it was relevant to the issue of whether Morrell had access to a firearm, since Morrell was on trial for robbery with a firearm. See Lawrence, 614 So. 2d at 1094.
Finally, Morrell argues that the trial court erred in admitting a witness’s testimony that a police detective told her Morrell confessed. We disagree with the State’s argument that Morrell failed to preserve this issue.
“Preserved” means that an issue, legal argument, or objection to evidence was timely raised before, and ruled on by, the trial court, and that the issue, legal argument or objection to evidence was sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor. § 924.051(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). Here, Morrell timely objected, and the trial court ruled on the issue. The objection was precise enough to apprise the trial court of its grounds and that the relief he sought was a mistrial. However, the State cured the error when it agreed to question the police detective as to whether Morrell confessed, and the detective testified that he did not. Moreover, we find no reasonable possibility that the witness’s statement affected the verdict. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135-39 (Fla.1986).
Affirmed.
PATTERSON, C.J., and PARKER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Crumbley v. State, 876 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…Correll v. State, 523 So. 2d 562, 566 (Fla.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 871, 109 S.Ct. 183, 102 L.Ed.2d 152 (1988)), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 833, 114 S.Ct. 107, 126 L.Ed.2d 73 (1993); Shaw v. State, 824 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Morrell v. State, 779 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In Hardwick v. Dugger, 648 So. 2d 100, 107 n. 5 (Fla.1994), the court noted: Although trial counsel filed a motion in limine to preclude testimony relating to Hardwick's drug activities, the trial court denied that motion. Upon…
-
Tolbert v. State, 922 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…ied, the failure to object at the time collateral crime evidence is introduced waives the issue for appellate review.' ”) (quoting Correll v. State, 523 So. 2d 562, 566 (Fla.1988); Shaw v. State, 824 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Morrell v. State, 779 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)).…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- State v. DiGUILIO, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1986)
- Williams v. State, 110 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 1959)
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)
- Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993)
- Correll v. State, 523 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1988)
- Franqui v. State, 699 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 1997)
- Lawrence v. State, 614 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1993)
- United States ex rel. Rabushka v. Crane Co., 523 U.S. 1040 (U.S. 1998)
- E. J. Co. v. Sandvik Aktiebolag, 523 U.S. 1040 (U.S. 1998)
- Lomax v. City of Joplin, 523 U.S. 1097 (U.S. 1998)