WILLIAM EDWARD BUBB, 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.
William Bubb was convicted of sexual battery and lewd or lascivious molestation of a child after a jury trial. On appeal, he challenged the trial court's admission of a Child Protection Team interview video after the child victim refused to testify, claiming a Sixth Amendment confrontation violation. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the error was not preserved and would have been harmless.
The court affirmed the conviction, finding that any error in admitting the CPT interview video was not preserved for appeal because the defendant failed to make a sufficiently specific objection at trial. Even if error occurred, it would not have been fundamental and would have been harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
[1] A Sixth Amendment confrontation clause challenge to the admission of evidence is unpreserved for appeal if the objection articulated at trial was not sufficiently specifi…
[2] An alleged error in the admission of evidence is considered harmless when overwhelming independent evidence supports the conviction.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“While no magic words are required to make a proper objection, ... the concern articulated in the objection must be sufficiently specific to inform the court of the perceived error.”
Establishes the standard for preserving confrontation errors on appeal; defendant's objection was insufficient because it was not sufficiently specific.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBubb was tried and convicted by jury of sexual battery on a person less than twelve years of age and lewd or lascivious molestation. The victim took t…
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 Preservation Of Error For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
After a jury trial, William Bubb was convicted of sexual battery on a person less than twelve years of age and lewd or lascivious molestation. On appeal, he argues that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment1 right of confrontation by permitting the victim’s Child Protection Team (“CPT”) interview video to be admitted into evidence after the child took the witness stand but refused to testify. We affirm. This alleged error was not preserved below. See Aills v. Boemi, 29 So.3d 1105, 1109 (Fla. 2010) (“While no magic words are required to make a proper objection, ... the concern articulated in the objection must be sufficiently specific to inform the court of the perceived error.” (citations omitted)); Mungin v. State, 932 So.2d 986, 1003 (Fla. 2006) (holding appellant’s confrontation issue unpreserved for appeal).
We further conclude that any error in the admission of the CPT interview video would not have been fundamental. Indeed, as to the sexual battery charge, any error would have been harmless given: (1) Bubb admitted in a post-arrest interview that he had penetrated the child’s vagina with his penis; (2) similar out-of-court statements from the victim were admitted without objection through the testimony of the nurse examiner; (3) forensic evidence established the existence of semen in the victim’s underwear; and (4) immediately after the events in question, a witness Ob*366served that Bubb was “red, sweaty, and very nervous,” and the witness was told by the victim, who was walking awkwardly, that her “Cindy” (a term the family used for vagina) had been touched.
AFFIRMED.
EVANDER, BERGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Aills v. Luciano Boemi, M.D., 29 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2010)
- Mungin v. State, 932 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2006)