TRAVIS L. JACKSON
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A defendant's general hearsay objection at trial is insufficient to preserve an issue under the opening-the-door doctrine and co-defendant testimony analysis for appellate review.
[1] A defendant must raise the specific ground for an objection at trial to preserve that issue for appeal.
[2] An objection based solely on hearsay is insufficient to preserve an appellate challenge to the admission of evidence based on the "opening the door" doctrine.
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“The prosecution may not gain, through the device of a joint trial, admission against one defendant of otherwise inadmissible evidence on the happenstance that the door to admitting the evidence has been opened by a co-defendant.”
Statement of the rule from United States v. White, 887 F.2d 267 (D.C. Cir. 1989), which the court declined to reach due to insufficient preservation
Jackson was jointly tried with a co-defendant. The prosecution sought to admit a photograph showing that Jackson's mother had previously identified th…
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 Hearsay Objection cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
We affirm appellant’s convictions and write to address one issue. Appellant was jointly tried along with his co-defendant. At trial, the state sought to introduce a still photograph taken from the convenience store security video to show that appellant’s mother had previously identified the co-defendant in the photograph, which had her initials written at the top. Following Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006), the trial court precluded the admission of the photograph. During trial, the co-defendant asked certain questions of a detective on cross-examination regarding prior identifications, which, as the trial court ruled, opened the door to the evidence previously held inadmissible. On appeal, appellant challenges the admission of that testimony against him. He relies on United States v. White, 887 F. 2d 267 (D.C. Cir. 1989), which holds that the opening-the-door doctrine does not apply to testimony elicited by co-defendants. White clearly states its holding:
The prosecution may not gain, through the device of a joint trial, admission against one defendant of otherwise inadmissible evidence on the happenstance that the door to admitting the evidence has been opened by a co-defendant. Id. at 270. We do not reach the White issue because appellant failed to preserve it by raising the “specific ground” of the objection at trial. § 90.104(1), Fla. Stat. (2017); Vergara v. State, 486 So. 2d 14, 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (appellant’s failure to specifically object at trial failed to preserve his objection based on Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968)). Appellant’s objection to “hearsay” at trial was insufficient to put the court on notice of the White issue he now raises on appeal. Affirmed. CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968)
- Ibar v. State, 938 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2006)
- United States v. White, 887 F.2d 267 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
- Vergara v. State, 486 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)