USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERTA ALLEN AND THOMAS ALLEN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES
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.
USAA Casualty Insurance Company appealed a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in an automobile negligence case, challenging the trial court's evidentiary rulings and jury selection procedures. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding that two issues were not preserved for appeal and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting post-crash vehicle photographs.
Two issues were not preserved for appeal: the peremptory challenge issue because appellant failed to renew its objection before the jury was sworn, and the surveillance evidence issue because the trial court never issued a definitive ruling on the motion in limine. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the post-crash vehicle photographs.
[1] To preserve an issue regarding the trial court's ruling on a peremptory challenge for appeal, a party must accept the juror or panel subject to its prior objection and re…
[2] A trial court's deferred ruling on a motion in limine does not constitute a definitive ruling on the record that preserves the issue for appeal without a subsequent objec…
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 intelligence“In order to preserve the issue of whether the trial court's ruling on a peremptory challenge constitutes reversible error, the appellant must accept the juror, or panel, subject to its prior objection and/or renew the objection before the jury is sworn.”
Establishes the procedural requirement for preserving peremptory challenge objections on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis was an automobile negligence case in which a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, Roberta and Thomas Allen. USAA challenged the tr…
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 Automobile Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the final judgment rendered after a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff in an automobile negligence case. Two of the issues raised by appellant were not preserved for appeal. As to the third, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence.
Appellant failed to preserve its objection to the trial court’s denial of appellant’s use of a peremptory challenge against an African-American juror under the procedure required by Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759, 765 (Fla.1996). In order to preserve the issue of whether the trial court’s ruling on a peremptory challenge constitutes reversible error, the appellant must accept the juror, or panel, subject to its prior objection and/or renew the objection before the jury is sworn. See id,.; Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993); Glinton v. State, 956 So.2d 497, 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Because the appellant accepted the jury without renewing its objection to the challenged juror, the issue was not preserved. We reject its contention that a challenge would have been futile. Without restating the objection to the trial court, the court cannot know that the party still maintains the previously voiced objection. The objection was also not so close to the end of jury selection such that it could be considered preserved without renewing the objection, as in Gootee v. Clevinger, 778 So.2d 1005, 1009 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
Appellant’s claim that the court erred in denying its motion in limine to prevent the mention of surveillance evidence was also not properly preserved. Section 90.104(1), Florida Statutes, provides: “If the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for *1272appeal.” See also Tillman v. State, 964 So.2d 785, 787-88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (holding that the trial court’s granting the state’s pre-trial motion in limine constituted “a definitive ruling on the record admitting evidence, meaning that Tillman need not have renewed his objection to preserve his claim of error for appeal”). In this case, the court never issued a definitive ruling on the motion, noting twice that it had deferred its ruling. It was thus incumbent on appellant to object when the appellees sought to introduce the evidence, which it did not do. Therefore, appellant failed to preserve the issue for appeal.
As to the admission of post-crash vehicle photographs, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.
POLEN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baccari v. State, 145 So. 3d 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…whether the trial court’s ruling on a peremptory challenge constitutes reversible error, the appellant must accept the juror, or panel, subject to its prior objection and/or renew the objection before the jury is sworn.” USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 17 So. 3d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The Florida Supreme Court has stated that “[u]nder our cases, the preservation of a challenge to a potential juror requires more than one objection. When a trial court denies or grants a peremptory challenge, the objecting…
-
Cirrus Design Corp. v. Lauraence A. Sasso, 95 So. 3d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ta v. Bradford Elec., Inc., 9 So. 3d 694, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Because we determined the trial court erred in not applying the law of contracts, we do not address the remaining issues raised by Cirrus on appeal. See USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 17 So. 3d 1270, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Reversed and remanded. GILLESPIE, KENNETH L., Associate Judge, concurs. POLEN, J., dissents with opinion. . The acceptance was unconditional and did not contain any counteroffers. . Because a written settlement agreem…
-
Rodrigues v. State, 142 So. 3d 901 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…d not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal.” § 90.104(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007) (emphasis added). Here, during the proffer, appellant failed to obtain such ruling on this issue. See USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Allen, 17 So. 3d 1270,1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The trial court did not rule on the specific comments elicited, and appellant failed to object to them. Thus, her failure to contemporaneously object to this testimony by the state’s expert means the issue is not preserved…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)
- Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993)
- Gootee v. Sidney Clevinger, M.D., 778 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Onterrious Tillman v. State, 964 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Glinton v. State, 956 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)