REGINALD L. HENRY, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed trial court's denial of suppression motions where defendant's counsel affirmatively stated "no objection" at trial, thereby waiving the pretrial objections despite the trial court's prior rulings.
A defendant waives pretrial motions to suppress by affirmatively stating "no objection" when the evidence is offered at trial, even when the trial court has previously ruled on the motions.
[1] A defendant waives pretrial motions to suppress by affirmatively stating "no objection" when evidence is offered at trial, even if the trial court previously ruled on the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe victim recorded a cell phone conversation with the defendant in which he made threats in an apparent extortion attempt. The trial court denied two…
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 Threats cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of two pretrial motions to suppress regarding a recording the victim made on her cell phone of a conversation with Appellant in which he made threats in an apparent attempt to extort money from her. It is well-settled that “to raise an error on appeal, a contemporaneous objection must be made , at the trial level when the alleged error occurred.” Carr v. State, 156 So.3d 1052, 1062 (Fla. 2015) (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)). Although section 90,104(1), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that, “[i]f the court has made a definitive ruling on the record admitting ... evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection ,.. to-preserve a claim of error for appeal,” the statute does not apply to the circumstances in the instant case. Here, the trial court denied both of Appellant’s motions to 'suppress and ruled the recording was admissible. Subsequently, at trial, the State moved to introduce the recording, and Appellant’s counsel affirmatively stated, “no objection.” Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Carr, counsel’s statement of “no objection” acted to abandon or waive the prior motions to suppress. See 156 So.3d at 1062. Accordingly, this issue was not preserved for appeal, and we affirm without further discussion.
WOLF, RAY, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delray Antonio Montaque v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…for their position on whether a specific item of evidence should be admitted. The most we can do here is flag the tension between the statute and the precedent for another look by the Florida Supreme Court in an appropriate case.”); Henry v. State, 230 So. 3d 56, 57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (“Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Carr, counsel’s statement of ‘no objection’ acted to abandon or waive the prior motions to suppress.”) (citing Carr, 156 So. 3d at 1062). Affirmed. GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ.…
-
Lopez v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1998)
- Emilia L. Carr v. State, 156 So. 3d 1052 (Fla. 2015)