Coney v. State

251 So. 3d 324
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 25, 2018·No. No. 3D17-2282·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*325Affirmed. See Rodriguez v. State, 609 So.2d 493, 499 (Fla. 1992) (noting: "It is well settled that the specific legal ground upon which a claim is based must be raised at trial and a claim different than that raised below will not be heard on appeal"); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So.2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982) (holding: "In 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"); Black v. State, 367 So.2d 656, 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same). See also Overton v. State, 801 So.2d 877, 900-01) (Fla. 2001) (discussing evidentiary principle of "opening the door", premised on notions of fairness and truth-seeking function of a trial).

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

Coney v. State, 251 So. 3d 324 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

251 So. 3d 324 (Coney v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Steinhorst v. State
412 So. 2d 332 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1982)
Black v. State
367 So. 2d 656 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Rodriguez v. State
609 So. 2d 493 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Overton v. State
801 So. 2d 877 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)