DOUGLAS MCARTHUR TENNANT, 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.
Douglas Tennant appealed his conviction for violating Florida beverage laws, challenging the admissibility of evidence from a search conducted pursuant to a valid search warrant. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that evidence obtained under a valid search warrant need not be preceded by introduction of the warrant itself into evidence, and that failure to timely object to such evidence constitutes waiver.
Evidence procured under a valid search warrant and introduced without objection during trial is admissible even if the search warrant itself is not received in evidence. An objection to incriminating evidence must be made seasonably when the evidence is introduced; failure to do so constitutes waiver and cannot be raised later or for the first time on appeal.
“evidence procured under a valid search warrant and introduced in the case without objection during the trial is rendered incompetent and subject to suppression unless the search warrant is received in evidence as proof of the legality of the search”
Statement of the legal rule the appellant sought to establish, which the court rejected as unsupported by authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLaw enforcement officers conducted a search of Tennant's residence pursuant to a valid search warrant and discovered moonshine whisky and a still. Off…
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 Timely Objection cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant has appealed a judgment of conviction and sentence based upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of violating the beverage laws of this state.
The evidence introduced against appellant at the trial consisted of testimony by law enforcement officers concerning moonshine whisky and a still found in defendant’s possession during a search of his residence made pursuant to a search warrant, the legality of which was not questioned. At the conclusion of the State’s evidence appellant moved the court to suppress a photograph of the still taken during the search and for a directed verdict on the ground that because of the State’s failure to introduce in evidence the search warrant, the testimony of what the witnesses found during the search was inadmissible. It is appellant’s position that without such incriminating evidence the verdict of guilty rendered against him cannot be sustained.
Appellant has cited no authority, and our research has revealed none, which holds that evidence procured under a valid search warrant and introduced in the case without obj ection during the trial is rendered incompetent and subject to suppression unless the search warrant is received in evidence as proof of the legality of the search. The record reveals that the officers procured a search warrant and acted pursuant to its authority in making their search of appellant’s premises as testified to at the trial. No objection to this testimony was interposed by defendant when offered, nor was the validity of the warrant or search made pursuant to it ever attacked. It was not until the State had completed its evidence and rested its case that the motion to suppress the evidence and for a directed verdict was made. It appears to be the settled law of this state that an objection to incriminating evidence offered in proof of an alleged crime must be seasonably made during the trial at the time when it is introduced. Failure to so object constitutes a waiver and cannot be raised either at a *325later stage of the proceedings, or for the first time on appeal. This is so even though a motion to suppress the evidence is preliminarily made and denied by the court.1
It is our view that appellant’s motion for directed verdict because of the State’s failure to introduce in evidence the search warrant involved in this case was not well taken as a matter of law, and that the trial court correctly denied it.
We have considered the remaining point urged by appellant on appeal but find it to be without substantial merit. The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K. and RAWLS, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…on of the contested evidence constitutes a waiver of the right to appellate review of an alleged error, even though issues of constitutional dimension are claimed to exist. O’Berry v. Wainwright, 300 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Tennant v. State, 205 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). See a iso Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594 (1977). Nevertheless, because of the importance of the issues raised by defendant, we deem it advisable to reach the question of whether, had contemporan…
-
Johnson v. State, 537 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…not preserved for appellate review, because, at the time the state moved for the introduction of the paraphernalia into evidence, defense counsel stated that he had no objection to its admission, appellee cites in support thereof, Tennant v. State, 205 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967), cert. denied, 210 So. 2d 227 (1968), and Baglio v. State, 467 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). The facts in both these two cases, however, are distinguishable from those at bar. In Tennant, the defense first moved at the conclus…
-
Isidro Rodriguez v. State, 433 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…(Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Roban v. State, 384 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Kiddy v. State, 378 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Stanley v. State, 357 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Tennant v. State, 205 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). See Castor v. State, 365 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1978); Clark v. State, 363 So. 2d 331 (Fla.1978); Mead v. State, 381 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Atkinson v. State, 378 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Hamilton v. State, 152 So. 2d 793…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Robertson v. State, 94 Fla. 770 (Fla. 1927)
- Fraterrigo v. State, 151 Fla. 634 (Fla. 1942)