Boswell v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Boswell v. State

92 So. 3d 883, 2012 WL 2813852, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11283

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 11, 2012

DocketNo. 4D10-5268

StatusPublished

This text of 92 So. 3d 883 (Boswell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boswell v. State, 92 So. 3d 883, 2012 WL 2813852, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11283 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences on multiple charges including first degree murder with a firearm, burglary, and animal cruelty. Appellant raises only two issues on appeal, both dealing with challenges to jurors. Neither issue was properly preserved for appeal. As to the Neil/Slappy¹ challenge to juror 16, appellant failed to renew his objection prior to the jury being sworn. See Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993) (acceptance of a jury panel constitutes a waiver of a previous objection); Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759, 765 (Fla.1996) (same, citing Joiner). Regardless, we conclude that the requirements of Melbourne were met and the court did not err in denying appellant’s challenge to the state’s striking of that juror. As to the objection to juror 6, appellant did not request to exercise a peremptory challenge as to that juror. Thus, the argument made on appeal is not the same as that made to the trial court. See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982) (“[I]n order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”). If we construe the objection to juror 6 as a for-cause challenge, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying it. See Carratelli v. State, 832 So.2d 850, 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), rev. denied, 848 So.2d 1153 (Fla.2003).

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences on multiple charges including first degree murder with a firearm, burglary, and animal cruelty. Appellant raises only two issues on appeal, both dealing with challenges to jurors. Neither issue was properly preserved for appeal. As to the Neil/Slappy¹ challenge to juror 16, appellant failed to renew his objection prior to the jury being sworn. See Joiner v. State, 618 So.2d 174, 176 (Fla.1993) (acceptance of a jury panel constitutes a waiver of a previous objection); Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759, 765 (Fla.1996) (same, citing Joiner). Regardless, we conclude that the requirements of Melbourne were met and the court did not err in denying appellant’s challenge to the state’s striking of that juror. As to the objection to juror 6, appellant did not request to exercise a peremptory challenge as to that juror. Thus, the argument made on appeal is not the same as that made to the trial court. See Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla.1982) (“[I]n order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”). If we construe the objection to juror 6 as a for-cause challenge, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying it. See Carratelli v. State, 832 So.2d 850, 854 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), rev. denied, 848 So.2d 1153 (Fla.2003).

WARNER, DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 So. 3d 883, 2012 WL 2813852, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 11283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boswell-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack