Washington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Washington v. State

392 So. 2d 599, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20453

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 1981

DocketNo. XX-2

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 392 So. 2d 599 (Washington 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

Washington v. State, 392 So. 2d 599, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20453 (Fla. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his conviction of aggravated battery, alleging error upon the court’s denial for his request for a jury instruction on simple battery. We find that appellant has failed to preserve the issue for appeal.

Although the record reflects that the trial judge fully understood the purpose for the appellant’s requested instruction on battery, no formal objection was made to the court’s [600]*600refusal to give the denied instruction. Appellant argues that it is redundant under such circumstances to require a formal objection in order to preserve what otherwise would be reversible error. This argument might be well-taken except for the fact that Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390(d), in no uncertain terms, requires such an objection to preserve the issue for appeal. Kelly v. State, 389 So.2d 250 (2d DCA 1980); White v. State, 324 So.2d 115 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

Appellant having failed to preserve the issue, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., concur. WENTWORTH, J., dissents with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of his conviction of aggravated battery, alleging error upon the court’s denial for his request for a jury instruction on simple battery. We find that appellant has failed to preserve the issue for appeal.

Although the record reflects that the trial judge fully understood the purpose for the appellant’s requested instruction on battery, no formal objection was made to the court’s [600]*600refusal to give the denied instruction. Appellant argues that it is redundant under such circumstances to require a formal objection in order to preserve what otherwise would be reversible error. This argument might be well-taken except for the fact that Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.390(d), in no uncertain terms, requires such an objection to preserve the issue for appeal. Kelly v. State, 389 So.2d 250 (2d DCA 1980); White v. State, 324 So.2d 115 (Fla.3d DCA 1976).

Appellant having failed to preserve the issue, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., concur. WENTWORTH, J., dissents with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 So. 2d 599, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-state-fladistctapp-1981.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack