LLOYD PHELPS, 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.
Lloyd Phelps appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and evidence tampering, raising three issues including challenges to jury instructions, a motion for judgment of acquittal, and the trial court's designation of a witness as a court witness under Florida's court witness rule. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding that Phelps's primary argument regarding the court witness rule was not preserved for appeal because the specific legal theory was not raised at trial.
The appellate court found no merit in any of Phelps's arguments. The court held that while section 90.608 allows parties to attack witness credibility, the court witness rule remains valid. More critically, the court held that Phelps's specific argument on appeal—that the court witness rule is no longer necessary based on the 1990 amendment—was not preserved for appeal because it was not raised at the trial level.
[1] An argument raised on appeal is not preserved if the specific legal basis for the argument was not raised contemporaneously and timely in the trial court.
[2] A trial court's decision to call a witness as a court witness is permissible when a party cannot vouch for the witness's credibility, but the witness's testimony is cruci…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“To preserve an argument for appeal, an appellant must timely and contemporaneously object at the trial level, on a stated legal basis, and then raise that specific contention again on appeal.”
Establishes the preservation-of-error doctrine that Phelps failed to satisfy
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLloyd Phelps was convicted of first-degree murder and evidence tampering. During trial, the State called Johnny Flowers as a witness and sought to hav…
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 Amendment Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Lloyd Phelps, challenges his convictions and sentences for first-degree murder and evidence tampering and raises three issues on appeal. We find no merit in Appellant’s arguments that the trial court erred in refusing to give his requested jury instruction and in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the tampering charge. In his remaining argument, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in calling Johnny Flowers *1233as a “court witness” pursuant to section 90.615(1), Florida Statutes,1 in light of the 1990 amendment to section 90.608, Florida Statutes, which allows for any party, including the party calling a witness, to attack the witness’s credibility. In essence, Appellant argues that the court witness rule is no longer necessary or appropriate based upon section 90.608. However, our review of the record shows that the primary basis upon which Appellant objected to Mr. Flowers being called as a court witness was that the State improperly relied upon contradictory evidence provided by its other witnesses in representing that it could not vouch for Mr. Flowers’ credibility. Because the specific argument raised on appeal was not argued below, it was not preserved for appeal. See State v. Petroni, 123 So.3d 62, 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“To preserve an argument for appeal, an appellant must timely and contemporaneously object at the trial level, on a stated legal basis, and then raise that specific contention again on appeal.”).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.'
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shere v. State, 579 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1991)
- State v. Petroni, 123 So. 3d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)