DOMINGO MONTALVO, 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.
Appellant Montalvo appealed his non-jury conviction and two-year sentence for larceny of an automobile, challenging the trial court's admission of evidence regarding other offenses and a co-defendant's admissions. The appellate court affirmed the conviction, finding that Montalvo failed to make timely objections to the first issue and that any error regarding the second issue was harmless.
The court found both points without merit. First, because Montalvo failed to make a timely objection to the evidence regarding other offenses during trial, the issue could not be considered on appeal. Second, regarding the co-defendant's admissions, any error was harmless because the trial judge initially recognized the testimony as hearsay, continued the case for proper testimony, and the accomplice ultimately testified to the same matters.
“where no objection is made to the admission of evidence during trial the question cannot be considered by the appellate court”
Establishes the preservation requirement for appellate review of evidentiary issues
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMontalvo was convicted in a non-jury trial for larceny of an automobile and sentenced to two years in the state penitentiary. At trial, the court admi…
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 Appellate Review Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, by this appeal, is' seeking reversal of a judgment and sentence- to two> *714years in the State penitentiary for larceny of an automobile.
To obtain a reversal of his non-jury conviction, the appellant relies upon the following points: 1) The trial court erred in admitting into evidence testimony of other unrelated offenses allegedly committed by the appellant and, 2) The trial court erred in admitting the admissions of a co-defendant into evidence.
A review of the record discloses that the appellant failed to make a timely objection to the admission of the evidence referred to in his first point on appeal. It is well settled that where no objection is made to the admission of evidence during trial the question cannot be considered by the appellate court. See: English v. State, 122 Fla. 77, 164 So. 848; Chaudoin v. State, Fla.App.1960, 118 So.2d 569. We find the appellant’s second point also to be without merit. The trial court, as reflected by the record, when confronted with the testimony relating to the confession of the accomplice at the first hearing in the cause, recognized the testimony was hearsay and continued the cause until the accomplice could be brought in to testify. Therefore, it is apparent the judge didn’t rely on the readmission of that testimony at the second hearing. Even assuming that the trial court did rely on the testimony complained of, said evidence would constitute harmless error in view of the testimony of the accomplice covering the same matters. Thus, it is entirely proper, in the instant case, to apply the provisions of § 924.33 Fla.Stat.,1 and we therefore affirm the judgment and sentence of the lower court. See: Martin v. State, 100 Fla. 16, 129 So. 112; Haddock v. State, 141 Fla. 132, 192 So. 802; Albano v. State, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 342.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donaldson v. State, 369 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…elf-defense. His wife’s testimony in that respect was merely cumulative and as such is not grounds for reversal on appeal when there is other competent substantial evidence in the record sufficient to sustain the verdict of guilt. Montalvo v. State, 154 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1963); Urga v. State, 155 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1963). Appellant’s Points Two and Three are based upon the charge that the trial court erred in admitting evidence to the effect that appellant had beaten his wife on occasions prior…
-
State v. Stubbs, 239 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 1970)…resulted from unfair interrogation. We note defendant’s statement was given first in time before confessions by the three co-defendants in this case. The District Court of Appeal, Third District, considered a similar situation in Montalvo v. State, 154 So. 2d 713 (1963), and concluded that where a defendant has made statements implicating himself, admission of a confession by a co-defendant tending to prove the same material facts is merely cumulative and is not reversible error. Montalvo pre-dated the Court…
-
Thomas v. State, 216 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…967, 200 So. 2d 212. As to the second point [regarding the ownership of the funds], not only was no objection made in the trial court to the introduction of this evidence [Walker v. State, 152 Fla. 455, 13 So. 2d 4; Montalvo v. State, Fla.App.1963, 154 So. 2d 713; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So. 2d 862; Kiraly v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 311], but it appears that counsel for the appellant stipulated that the funds belonged to the entity described in the information and no objection nor assignm…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Town of Boynton v. State, 100 Fla. 16 (Fla. 1930)
- Haddock v. State, 141 Fla. 132 (Fla. 1939)
- Chaudoin v. State, 118 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- Albano v. State, 89 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 1956)
- English v. State, 122 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1935)