DENNIS L. MCCLOUD, 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.
Dennis McCloud was convicted of sex offenses against two child victims based partly on a recording of a Child Protection Team interview. On appeal, McCloud challenged whether the trial court's order admitting the evidence under Florida's hearsay exception for child abuse victims contained sufficient findings, but the court affirmed because McCloud failed to preserve the issue by raising it at trial.
The trial court's order contained sufficient findings to permit admissibility under section 90.803(23). Additionally, McCloud failed to preserve the issue for appeal because he did not contest the sufficiency of the findings in the trial court or raise any objection to the adequacy of the written findings before trial.
[1] A trial court's order allowing evidence under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes, is not preserved for appeal if the appellant failed to contest the sufficiency of the…
[2] A defendant must raise issues regarding the adequacy of a trial court's written findings in the trial court to preserve those issues for appellate review.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 appellant did not make that argument in the trial court and did not otherwise raise any issue then as to the adequacy of the written findings. Instead, the appellant let the case go to trial without raising the issue, and after being convicted he now attempts to interject this issue on appeal.”
Establishes that McCloud failed to preserve the issue by not raising it in the trial court before proceeding to trial
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcCloud was convicted of sex offenses against two child victims. At trial, the state introduced a recording of one victim's Child Protection Team inte…
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 Child Victim Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant challenges convictions for sex offenses committed on two child victims, with those convictions being obtained in a jury trial where the evidence included a recording of one victim’s Child Protection Team interview when she reported the sex abuse. The appellant contends that the trial court’s order allowing this evidence lacks sufficiently detailed findings to permit admissibility under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes. However, the order does contain sufficient findings, and furthermore the appellant did not preserve the issue for appeal as he did not contest the sufficiency of the findings while in the trial court.
Before trial, the state filed a notice of its intent to introduce statements from the Child Protection Team interview into evidence, pursuant to section 90.803(23). At a pre-trial hearing the court heard testimony as to the circumstances under which the interview was conducted, and the Child Protection Team member’s interaction with the child there, as well as a prior interview and the team member’s earlier contact with the child. The appellant subsequently argued that the child’s statements were not shown to be reliable enough to satisfy the requirements of section 90.803(23). However, the trial court indicated that it would allow the evidence under section 90.803(23), and the court thereafter entered the written order which the appellant is now challenging in this appeal.
Although the appellant claims that the written order lacks sufficiently detailed findings, the appellant did not make that argument in the trial court and did not otherwise raise any issue then as to the *941adequacy of the written findings. Instead, the appellant let the case go to trial without raising the issue, and after being convicted he now attempts to interject this issue on appeal. But because the appellant did not raise the issue in the trial court, where a claimed deficiency in the written order could be corrected, the issue has not been preserved for appeal. Elwell v. State, 954 So.2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); see also, e.g., Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935 (Fla.2005).
AFFIRMED.
DAVIS and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cowan v. State, 165 So. 3d 58 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…not preserved for appeal because appellant failed to make a contemporaneous objection to the lack of findings. Elwell v. State, 954 So. 2d 104, 109 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); accord, Rodriguez v. State, 120 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); McCloud v. State, 91 So. 3d 940, 941 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Accordingly, we affirm. AFFIRMED. WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Rodriguez v. State, 120 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…failed to make the required findings of reliability under section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (2010). Elwell v. State, 954 So. 2d 104, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Wykle v. State, 659 So. 2d 1287, 1288-89 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); see also McCloud v. State, 91 So. 3d 940 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Appellant asserts he could not object to the lack of findings because the trial court never ruled on the admissibility of the child hearsay testimony. He notes the trial court’s post-trial statement that it intended to make a…
-
Moore v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…y understand the concepts of “truth” or “lie,” reported the abuse late, and was repeatedly led by the interviewer. But Appellant did not preserve the issue for appeal as he did not contest the sufficiency of the findings below. See McCloud v. State, 91 So. 3d 940, 940–41 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (citing Elwell v. State, 954 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“[B]ecause the appellant did not raise the issue in the trial court, where a claimed deficiency in the written order could be corrected, the issue has not been p…
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
- Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2005)
- Elwell v. State, 954 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)