JESSICA M. PARISI, 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.
Jessica Parisi appeals her convictions for burglary of a structure, resisting without violence, and petit theft. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed her convictions, rejecting her claims that the trial court erred in admitting officer testimony and denying her motion for judgment of acquittal.
The court affirmed the convictions. The objection to the officer's testimony was not properly preserved because Parisi objected on expertise grounds rather than lay opinion grounds, failing to apprise the court of the relief sought. The motion for judgment of acquittal was properly denied because the State presented direct evidence contradicting Parisi's innocence hypothesis through officer testimony that they observed no animal and saw her exit and flee the shed, establishing stealthy entry sufficient to prove intent under the statutory presumption.
[1] An issue raised on appeal is not properly preserved if the objection made at trial was not sufficiently precise to apprise the trial court of the grounds for the objectio…
[2] A motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied when the State presents direct evidence contradicting the defendant's hypothesis of innocence.
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“An issue or objection is 'preserved' within the meaning of the statute if it was timely raised and ruled on by the trial judge and if the objection was 'sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor.'”
Establishes the standard for preserving issues on appeal; Parisi failed to meet this standard by objecting on expertise grounds rather than lay opinion grounds.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParisi entered a shed and claimed she was looking for a cat she thought she had hit while driving down an alley. Officers observed her driving, did no…
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 Resisting Without Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm appellant’s Conviction and sentence for burglary of a structure, resisting without violence, and petit theft. Although she claims in her brief that the court erred in admitting lay opinion testimony from an officer, the objection that the trial court ruled on was that the officer’s testimony required expertise. She did not apprise the court that she objected to his testimony as lay opinion. Thus, the issue raised on appeal was not properly preserved. See Filan v. State, 768 So.2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“An issue or objection" is '‘preserved’ within the meaning of the statute if.it was timely raised and ruled on by the trial judge and if the objection was ‘sufficiently precise that it fairly apprised the trial court of the relief sought and the grounds therefor.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting § 924,051(l)(b), FÍá. Stat. (2013))).
As to her claim that the court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal, appellant maintained that the case was circumstantial,' and the State did not offer evidence to contradict her hypothesis of innocence. We disagree. While appellant claimed that she1'thought she hit a cat driving down an alley and she was in the structure (a shed) looking for the cat, officers had observed her driving and testified that they did not see any animal. They also saw her exit the shed and flee from them, thus establishing her entry into the structure. This was direct evidence contradicting her hypothesis, of innocence. State v. Law, 559 So.2d 187, 188-89 (Fla.1989). Furthermore, to prove intent, the State could rely on the statuto*612ry presumption of section 810.07(1); Florida Statutes (2013), that stealthy entry into a structure presumes an intent to commit an offense therein. We conclude that the State provided direct evidence of a stealthy entry.
Affirmed.
MAY and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Ronnie S. LAW, 559 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 1989)
- Filan v. State, 768 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)