TIMOTHY SCOTT, 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.
Timothy Scott appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and in allowing improper prosecutor remarks. The appellate court affirmed, finding that Scott failed to preserve the corpus delicti issue for appeal by not making a contemporaneous objection at trial.
The appellate court affirmed Scott's conviction because the corpus delicti issue was not adequately preserved for appeal due to the lack of a contemporaneous objection at trial. The court found no error regarding the prosecutor's remarks and made no further comment on that issue.
[1] A defendant must make a contemporaneous objection to the admission of incriminating statements made without independent proof of the corpus delicti to preserve the issue…
[2] Failure to object contemporaneously to the admission of a defendant's confession without independent proof of the corpus delicti waives the issue for appeal.
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“[U]nder the corpus delicti rule, the State has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that a crime was committed before a defendant's confession can be admitted in evidence.”
Establishes the governing legal standard for admission of confessions without independent proof of the crime
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The State presented undisputed evidence of Scott's prior felony conviction. The S…
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 Corpus Delicti Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Timothy Scott (Appellant) appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.* As grounds for relief, Appellant contends that the trial court erred, first, in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and, second, in allowing the prosecutor to make certain improper remarks during closing argument. Finding no error as to the second issue, we affirm without further comment. In the first issue, Appellant argues that the State introduced Appellant’s incriminating statements without establishing the corpus de-licti of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. We affirm the judgment and sentence because Issue One was not adequately preserved.
“[U]nder the corpus delicti rule, the State has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, that a crime was committed before a defendant’s confession can be admitted in evidence.” Martin v. State, 911 So.2d 821, 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); see Burks v. State, 613 So.2d 441, 443 (Fla.1993). The State offered into evidence undisputed proof that Appellant had a prior felony conviction. As to the element of possession of a firearm, the State introduced statements of Appellant directly linking him to the room where the firearm was found next to his bed. Where an admission against interest is allowed into evidence without independent proof of the corpus delicti, a contemporaneous objection must be made to preserve the issue for appellate review. J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998) (“In the absence of a proper objection, a trial judge does not have an obligation to prohibit inadmissible evidence from being considered by the fact finder.”). No such objection was made in this case. ‘Without an objection, the error, if it was error, was waived and not preserved for appeal.” State v. Harrington, 838 So.2d 1230, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (concluding that because defendant’s confession was admitted into evidence without an objection, the defense waived the issue of whether the State adequately proved the corpus delicti of the offense before admission of the statement, and defense counsel’s argument made at the end of the State’s case, relying on the corpus delicti rule, was not a proper substitute for a contemporaneous objection).
AFFIRMED.
PADOVANO and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walt McCoy Porter v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
-
Quanavis Ladon Pender v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
Authorities Cited
- J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1998)
- Burks v. State, 613 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Harrington, 838 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Martin v. State, 911 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Kelly v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 911 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)