Anderson v. State

Florida Circuit Courts

Anderson v. State

43 Fla. Supp. 2d 15

CourtCircuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 1990

DocketCase No. 90-401 (County Court Case No. 019-848IM)

StatusPublished

This text of 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 15 (Anderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. State, 43 Fla. Supp. 2d 15 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

The Appellant contends that the Trial Court committed error in admitting his extra-judicial statements into evidence that he was the operator of a motor vehicle prior to the establishment of the corpus delicti of the crime of D.U.I. The Appellee responds that no such error was committed because the Appellant never objected to the admission of these statements.

[16]*16The Appellee is correct. At no time did the Appellant make a timely objection to the introduction of his statements based on the fact that the corpus delicti was not established. The only objection made was predicated on the “accident report privilege” (R.27) and the Appellant does not argue in this Appeal that the Trial Court erred in overruling that objection. Thus any error in admitting these statements may not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a timely objection below. McRae v State, 383 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

Nor can this Court consider this issue in the context of the Trial Court’s denial of the Appellant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal as contemplated by Knight v State, 402 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The Appellant’s perfunctory Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (R.40) was inadequate to preserve for Appellate review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. Williams v State, 531 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) and Johnson v State, 478 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Therefore, the Appellant’s judgment and conviction for D.U.I. is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Appellant contends that the Trial Court committed error in admitting his extra-judicial statements into evidence that he was the operator of a motor vehicle prior to the establishment of the corpus delicti of the crime of D.U.I. The Appellee responds that no such error was committed because the Appellant never objected to the admission of these statements.

[16]*16The Appellee is correct. At no time did the Appellant make a timely objection to the introduction of his statements based on the fact that the corpus delicti was not established. The only objection made was predicated on the “accident report privilege” (R.27) and the Appellant does not argue in this Appeal that the Trial Court erred in overruling that objection. Thus any error in admitting these statements may not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a timely objection below. McRae v State, 383 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

Nor can this Court consider this issue in the context of the Trial Court’s denial of the Appellant’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal as contemplated by Knight v State, 402 So.2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The Appellant’s perfunctory Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (R.40) was inadequate to preserve for Appellate review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. Williams v State, 531 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) and Johnson v State, 478 So.2d 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

Therefore, the Appellant’s judgment and conviction for D.U.I. is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 Fla. Supp. 2d 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-flacirct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack