Carabella v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Carabella v. State

727 So. 2d 270, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 845, 1999 WL 44443

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 3, 1999·No. No. 98-0427·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously excluded certain testimony upon the state’s hearsay objection. By not raising in the trial court those arguments for admissibility now raised on appeal, appellant failed to preserve his contention that the excluded statements were non-hearsay or that they fell within some exception to the hearsay rule. See Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985); Guittierez v. State, 704 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (Gross, J., concurring).

DELL, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues that the trial court erroneously excluded certain testimony upon the state’s hearsay objection. By not raising in the trial court those arguments for admissibility now raised on appeal, appellant failed to preserve his contention that the excluded statements were non-hearsay or that they fell within some exception to the hearsay rule. See Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985); Guittierez v. State, 704 So.2d 161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (Gross, J., concurring).

DELL, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Carabella v. State, 727 So. 2d 270, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 845, 1999 WL 44443 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

727 So. 2d 270 (Carabella v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related