Tinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tinson v. State

594 So. 2d 334, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1889, 1992 WL 36272

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 1992

DocketNo. 90-3519

StatusPublished

This text of 594 So. 2d 334 (Tinson 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

Tinson v. State, 594 So. 2d 334, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1889, 1992 WL 36272 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction for sexual battery of a six year old child. The trial court’s ruling admitting the child victim’s hearsay statements pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989) was not error. The material allegations of the offense were proven by the child’s testimony which was supported by the testimony of others. Appellant’s remaining points, charging error in the admission of the expert testimony of a member of the Child Protection Team,¹ and the refusal to permit testimony regarding an incident occurring between the child victim and her father, were not preserved below. As to the first issue, the record discloses the absence of an objection to the expert testimony on the ground that it amounted to vouching for the credibility of the victim, precluding review on that ground here. Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1988). As to the second issue, the record discloses that trial counsel never asserted below a constitutional right of confrontation as a basis for his attempted cross-examination in regard to the alleged incident in question, and made no proffer of the evidence sought to be elicited. Accordingly, no abuse of discretion has been shown in the trial court’s ruling that the collateral incident alluded to by counsel in his discussion and argument at trial was irrelevant to the issues before the jury.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals his conviction for sexual battery of a six year old child. The trial court’s ruling admitting the child victim’s hearsay statements pursuant to section 90.803(23), Florida Statutes (1989) was not error. The material allegations of the offense were proven by the child’s testimony which was supported by the testimony of others. Appellant’s remaining points, charging error in the admission of the expert testimony of a member of the Child Protection Team,¹ and the refusal to permit testimony regarding an incident occurring between the child victim and her father, were not preserved below. As to the first issue, the record discloses the absence of an objection to the expert testimony on the ground that it amounted to vouching for the credibility of the victim, precluding review on that ground here. Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212 (Fla. 1988). As to the second issue, the record discloses that trial counsel never asserted below a constitutional right of confrontation as a basis for his attempted cross-examination in regard to the alleged incident in question, and made no proffer of the evidence sought to be elicited. Accordingly, no abuse of discretion has been shown in the trial court’s ruling that the collateral incident alluded to by counsel in his discussion and argument at trial was irrelevant to the issues before the jury.

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN, SMITH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

594 So. 2d 334, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 1889, 1992 WL 36272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tinson-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack