MICHAEL WOMACK, 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 court held that a general objection preserved the issue of the trial court's failure to make specific findings for admitting child hearsay, and insufficient findings prevent appellate review of the evidence's sufficiency.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by admitting hearsay testimony from a child without making specific findings of fact on the record as required by statute.
[2] A general objection, recognized by the trial court as a continuing objection, preserves the issue of improper admission of hearsay for appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted of lewd or lascivious offenses. The trial court admitted child hearsay statements without making specific findings of fact as …
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 Continuing Objection cases and more on FLexlaw
POLSTON, J.
In this direct criminal appeal, appellant Michael Womack seeks reversal of his convictions for lewd or lascivious offenses committed upon or in the presence of a child in violation of section 800.04, Florida Statutes. We hold, without further comment, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the ex pert testimony of Dr. Jones, a psychiatrist, proffered by appellant. Although a number of additional issues are raised by appellant, we find it necessary to only address the improper admission of hearsay testimony by failing to comply with section 90.803(23)(c), Florida Statutes (1999)(“The court shall make specific findings of fact, on the record, as to the basis for its ruling under this subsection.”).
The parties agree that the trial court did not make specific findings of fact on the record as required by section 90.803(23)(c). Nevertheless, the State argues, there is not reversible error because (i) appellant’s general objection to the child hearsay statements failed to preserve this issue for appellate review, and (ii) the reliability of the child hearsay statements was established through the testimony of other witnesses.
First, we hold that appellant’s general objection, recognized by the trial court as a continuing objection, preserved the issue for appeal. See In the Interest of R.L.R., 647 So. 2d 251, 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Mathis v. State, 682 So. 2d 175, 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372, 1376 (Fla.1994). We reject the State’s second argument because “if the trial court’s findings are insufficient to comply with the statute, a reviewing court should not look behind those findings to determine whether, notwithstanding the insufficiency of the findings, the evidence is sufficient to sustain the trial court’s ruling regarding admissibility of the statement.” Mathis, 682 So. 2d at 178.
Therefore, we are constrained to reverse appellant’s convictions and sentences, and remand the case for retrial.
KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elwell v. State, 954 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…vely clear from a reading of the relevant portions of the record that both the state and the trial court understood that the objection made by appellant’s counsel went to the legal sufficiency of the trial court’s findings.” Id. In Womack v. State, 855 So. 2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), the parties agreed “that the trial court did not make specific findings of fact on the record as required by section 90.803(23)(e)” but the State argued that “there is not reversible error because ... appellant’s general o…
-
Coleman v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Hopkins v. State, 632 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 1994)
- Mathis v. State, 682 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- IN the Interest OF R.L.R., 647 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)