JB v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
JB v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …in the absence of a proper objection, a trial judge does not have an obligation to prohibit inadmissible evidence from being considered by the fact finder. at p. 1378 ✓ Topic ↗
130 citation events (118 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ravelo v. Florida Department of Corrections (flsd, 2023-04-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Ravelo v. Florida Department of Corrections (2×)
S.D. Fla. · 2023 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
while we acknowledge that several jurisdictions have abandoned this rule . . . we reaffirm the requirement that an independent corpus delicti must be established when offering an admission against interest into evidence.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) William Lee v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
in the absence of a proper objection, a trial judge does not have an obligation to prohibit inadmissible evidence from being considered by the fact finder.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Scott v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
an error is fundamental when it goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Lee v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
in the absence of a proper objection, a trial judge does not have an obligation to prohibit inadmissible evidence from being considered by the fact finder.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Lee v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
in the absence of a proper objection, a trial judge does not have an obligation to prohibit inadmissible evidence from being considered by the fact finder.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Isiah Rashad Moore v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
“Fundamental error ‘goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to the denial of due process.’” Hayes v. State, 276 So. 3d 950 , 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lavon Shinn v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (2×)
11th Cir. · 2026 · confidence medium
In homicide cases, for instance, “the corpus delicti consists of three component elements: First, the fact of death; second, the criminal agency of another person as the cause thereof; and, third, the iden- tity of the deceased person.” Lee v. State, 117 So. 699, 701 (Fla. 1928). “[T]he State cannot offer into evidence an admission against interest to prove an element of the charged offense in the absence of an independently established corpus delicti.” J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Facundo v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Such an error "is equivalent to a denial of due process." J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Caleb Jean-Charles v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
It “goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to the denial of due process.” J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Florida Homeowner Equity and Lost Property, LLC v. Fairchild
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
An error is fundamental where it "goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process." Id. (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ernest Lawson v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
“Thus, an error is deemed fundamental ‘when it goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.’” Id. (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Anthony Alexander v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
“Thus, an error is deemed fundamental ‘when it goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.’” Id. (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brandon J. Bartels v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
In other words, “an error is deemed fundamental ‘when it goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.’” Id. (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cooper Michael Sauls v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
As Justice Quince noted in T.G., the preservation requirement “prohibits 8 counsel from attempting to gain a tactical advantage by allowing unknown errors to go undetected and then seeking a second trial if the first decision is adverse to the client.” T.G., 800 So. 2d at 210 (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robert Wayne Lincoln v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edmond Weeks and Tamara Casey v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
“An error is ‘fundamental’ only when it is one that ‘goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.’” Washington v. State, 328 So. 3d 364 , 368 (Fla. 2021) (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Sharnika Lashay Moore-Bryant v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
“Generally, to raise an error on appeal, a contemporaneous objection must be made at the trial level when the alleged error occurred.” J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Paulina Monzon, etc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Fundamental error “goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.” J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ANDRES ANDRES v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
As a general rule, fully applicable here, “to raise an error on appeal, a contemporaneous objection must be made at the trial level when the alleged error occurred.” J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reynaldo Figueroa-Sanabria v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2023 · confidence medium
We have said they are those that “permeate or saturate the trial with such basic invalidity as to lead to a reversal regardless of a timely objection,” Brown v. State, 124 So. 2d 481, 484 (Fla. 1960), and go to “the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and [are] equivalent to a denial of due process,” J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Henry James Washington v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
“An error is ‘fundamental’ only when it is one that ‘goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.’” Id. (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth Lee Manhard v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
First, we note that Appellant has not preserved his objections. “[T]o raise an error on appeal, a contemporaneous objection must be made at the trial level when the alleged error occurred.” Carr v. State, 156 So. 3d 1052, 1062 (Fla. 2015) (citing J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TIMOTHY RICHARD FOX v. PAMELA SUE FOX
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
F.B. v. State, 852 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2003) (“The sole exception to the contemporaneous objection rule applies where the error is fundamental.” (citing J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998))).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TAIDE WISTON ASENCIO, JR. v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
“Fundamental error is error that ‘goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action.’” James v. State, 843 So. 2d 933, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Parrondo v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
An error is deemed fundamental “when it goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.” J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reginald L. Henry v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
It is well-settled that “to raise an error on appeal, a contemporaneous objection must be made , at the trial level when the alleged error occurred.” Carr v. State, 156 So.3d 1052, 1062 (Fla. 2015) (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tavares David Calloway v. State of Florida (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 2017 · confidence medium
J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998); see also F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mark James Asay v. State of Florida, SC16-102 Mark James Asay v. Julie L. Jones, etc. & SC16-628 Mark James Asay v. Julie L. Jones, etc. (2×)
Fla. · 2016 · confidence medium
J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ralph Monroe v. State of Florida (2×)
Fla. · 2016 · confidence medium
Id. at 229 (citing J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla. 1982)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Louidor v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998) (holding “[o]nly when error is fundamental can the error be raised on appeal in the absence of a contemporaneous objection”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Emilia L. Carr v. State of Florida (2×)
Fla. · 2015 · confidence medium
We have repeatedly held that “to raise an error on appeal, a contemporaneous objection must be made at the trial level when the alleged error occurred.”, J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Charles Smith v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
“An error is fundamental when it goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.” J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Darious Wilcox v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2014 · confidence medium
F.B v. State, 852 So. 2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2003); J.B. v. State, 705 So. 2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wilcox v. State
Fla. · 2014 · confidence medium
F.B v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 229 (Fla.2003); J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Polls v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
An error is deemed fundamental “when it goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.” J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Garcia v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
“The requirement of contemporaneous objection ... not only affords trial judges the opportunity to address and possibly redress a claimed error, it also prevents counsel from allowing errors in the proceedings to go unchallenged and later using the error to a client’s tactical advantage.” Id. (citing J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998) (“In the absence of a proper objection, a trial judge does not have an obligation to prohibit inadmissible evidence from being considered by the fact finder.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Odeh v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
“Only when error is fundamental can the error be raised on appeal in the absence of a contemporaneous objection.” J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Shootes v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Even if the challenge to the presence of the law enforcement personnel in the gallery had not been properly preserved, an exception to the contemporaneous objection requirement applies “where the error is fundamental.” J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bailey v. State
Fla. · 2008 · confidence medium
This is a high burden which requires an error that "goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process." Johnson v. State, 969 So.2d 938, 955 (Fla.2007) (quoting J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998)), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2056 , 170 L.Ed.2d 799 (2008).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Montes v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 229 (Fla.2003); J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PRUDENT v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
To be considered fundamental "the error must reach down into the validity of the trial itself to the extent that a verdict of guilty could not have been obtained without the assistance of the alleged *1144 error." Id. (quoting Brown v. State, 124 So.2d 481, 484 (Fla.1960)); J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998) ("An error is fundamental when it goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process.").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. State
Fla. · 2007 · confidence medium
For the same reason, the questions do not cross the higher threshold of fundamental error, which can be raised even if unpreserved because it "goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process." J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martin v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wooten v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Fundamental error is error that “goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to the denial of due process.” J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998) “[R]arely will an error be deemed fundamental, and the more general rule requiring a contemporaneous objection to preserve an issue for appellate review will usually apply.” F.B. v. State, 852 So.2d 226, 229-230 (Fla.2003).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crain v. State
Fla. · 2004 · confidence medium
When constitutional rights are implicated, we have considered issues for the first time on appeal as fundamental error where the error "goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process." J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998). *69 To determine whether the felony murder instruction based on kidnapping with intent to inflict bodily harm constitutes fundamental error, we must consider two lines of precedent.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) F.B. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 2003 · confidence medium
J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) FB v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. · 2003 · confidence medium
J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla.1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) James v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Fundamental error is error that "goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action." J.B. v. State, 705 So.2d 1376, 1378 (Fla. 1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
J.B., a child, Petitioner,
v.
STATE of Florida, Respondent.
90309.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan 22, 1998.
705 So. 2d 1376
Overton.
Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 67%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (2)

[*1377] Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender and Glen P. Gifford, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; James W. Rogers, Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

OVERTON, Justice.

We have for review J.B. v. State, 689 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), which expressly and directly conflicts with Johnson v. State, 569 So.2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), on the issue of whether the absence of independent proof of the corpus delicti is an issue that can be raised for the first time on appeal. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed, we find that the issue must be raised at the trial court level to preserve it for appeal.

The record reflects the following relevant facts. On the evening of January 8, 1996, Officer Raymond White was in pursuit of a truck driven by J.B., a juvenile, and occupied by one other person, when two bottles flew out of the truck's passenger-side window. Once Officer White stopped J.B., a second officer arrived on the scene. The second officer retrieved the two discarded bottles and gave them to Officer White.

Prompted by the littering and the apparent contents of the bottles, Officer White read J.B. his Miranda[1] rights. In response to questioning, J.B. stated that he and the passenger had each possessed a "beer." After charging J.B. with underage possession of alcohol, Officer White disposed of the bottles.

In a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, J.B. successfully suppressed evidence regarding the type and content of the bottles seized by the officers because they had been discarded. Nonetheless, the court found J.B. guilty of possession of alcohol by a person under 21, withheld adjudication of delinquency, and placed him on juvenile community control.

On direct appeal to the First District Court of Appeal, J.B. argued that his conviction rested on an admission introduced in the absence of independent proof of the corpus delicti. The admission in question was J.B.'s statement to Officer White that he had been in possession of "beer." J.B. claimed that an independent corpus delicti establishing that J.B. had possessed a substance that was in fact alcoholic in nature had not been offered. The district court found that the issue had not been properly preserved for appeal because J.B. had allowed the admission into evidence without a contemporaneous objection. The district court further concluded that the introduction of the admission in the absence of independent proof of the corpus delicti did not constitute fundamental error so as to overcome the procedural bar.

We accepted review based on express and direct conflict with Johnson v. State, 569 So.2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In Johnson, the defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to sell based on a confession that was admitted without the state's having established an independent corpus delicti. The Second District Court of Appeal concluded that, regardless of the lack of contemporaneous objection below, fundamental error occurs when a defendant's confession is[*1378] admitted without an independent corpus delicti being established.[2]

In this proceeding, J.B. asks that we quash the district court's decision in this case and approve the district court's opinion in Johnson, finding the introduction of the admission into evidence in the absence of independent proof of the corpus delicti to be fundamental error. The State, on the other hand, not only asks that we approve the decision in J.B., but also asks that we eliminate altogether the requirement that an independent corpus delicti be established when offering a confession or admission against interest into evidence. This latter position of the State would require us to overrule our recent decision in Burks v. State, 613 So.2d 441 (Fla. 1993).

In Burks, we concluded that the State cannot offer into evidence an admission against interest to prove an element of the charged offense in the absence of an independently established corpus delicti. While we acknowledge that several jurisdictions have abandoned this rule,[3] we conclude that the policy considerations set forth in Burks are still applicable and we reaffirm the requirement that an independent corpus delicti must be established when offering an admission against interest into evidence. As we stated in Burks, the primary policy reason for the rule is that "[t]he judicial quest for truth requires that no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication." Id. at 443 (quoting State v. Allen, 335 So.2d 823, 825 (Fla.1976)). We reject the State's invitation to abolish the rule.

We next address the question of whether the admission of a confession into evidence without independent proof of the corpus delicti constitutes fundamental error. Generally, to raise an error on appeal, a contemporaneous objection must be made at the trial level when the alleged error occurred. Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193, 1197 (Fla.1995). In the absence of a proper objection, a trial judge does not have an obligation to prohibit inadmissible evidence from being considered by the fact finder. See Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701 (Fla.1978); see also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 104.1 (1996). The contemporaneous objection rule serves several purposes. Most notably, the rule provides an opportunity for trial judges, who are most familiar with the case and proceedings, to respond to objections. Davis, 661 So.2d at 1197. Further, it prohibits counsel from attempting to gain a tactical advantage by allowing unknown errors to go undetected and then seeking a second trial if the first decision is adverse to the client. Id. Only when error is fundamental can the error be raised on appeal in the absence of a contemporaneous objection. Crump v. State, 622 So.2d 963, 972 (Fla. 1993); State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla. 1993). An error is fundamental when it goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action and is equivalent to a denial of due process. Johnson, 616 So.2d at 3.

We conclude that the allowance of a confession or admission against interest into evidence, without independent proof of the corpus delicti, requires a contemporaneous objection in order to preserve the issue for appeal. We suggested that an objection at trial is necessary under these circumstances in Tompkins v. State, 502 So.2d 415, 418 (Fla.1986), where we stated: "We first note that appellant never objected to the introduction of the confession [without independent proof of the corpus delicti] at trial. However, assuming arguendo that appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case preserved the issue, we find no trial court error." (Emphasis added.)

In finding this issue to constitute fundamental error in Johnson, the Second District relied by analogy on its decisions in Nelson v. State, 543 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), and Dydek v. State, 400 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), for the proposition that the error[*1379] in admitting the defendant's confession without independent proof of the corpus delicti was fundamental. In Nelson, the court held that the defendant's flight from an officer, as the sole evidence against the defendant, could not support a charge of resisting arrest. Similarly in Dydek, a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia was reversed where the evidence could not have been used to administer a controlled substance. In each case, fundamental error occurred because prima facie evidence of the crime charged was not presented. However, these cases are distinguishable because in the instant case, prima facie evidence as to each element of the offense was presented.

Moreover, we have declined to recognize fundamental error in analogous circumstances. For example, the failure to make certain findings required by statute before allowing a child to testify via closed circuit television does not constitute fundamental error. Hopkins v. State, 632 So.2d 1372, 1374-75 (Fla.1994). Further, fundamental error does not exist where sworn testimony from a previous trial is admitted and the defendant fails to object on the grounds that he was unable to cross-examine a witness. Downs v. State, 572 So.2d 895, 900 (Fla.1990). As in these cases, we conclude that J.B.'s failure to object to the admission of his confession without the corpus delicti having been established by independent proof did not result in a denial of his right to due process.

J.B. also contends that even if the admission of a confession in the absence of independent proof of the corpus delicti is not fundamental error, the evidence in this case is circumstantial and is consistent with a reasonable hypothesis that the "beer" he acknowledged possessing was non-alcoholic. As to this issue, we find that J.B.'s admission that the substance he possessed was "beer" is direct evidence and is sufficient to make a prima facie showing that the substance was alcoholic in nature. See § 562.47(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).

For the reasons expressed, we approve the decision of the district court and disapprove the Second District's decision in Johnson to the extent that it conflicts with our holding here.

It is so ordered.

KOGAN, C.J., SHAW, HARDING, WELLS and ANSTEAD, JJ., and GRIMES, Senior Justice, concur.

1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
2 The district court based this conclusion on Farley v. City of Tallahassee, 243 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971), which was overruled by the First District in the instant case. J.B., 689 So.2d at 360.
3 See David M. Nissman & Ed Hagen, Law of Confessions § 12:2, 4, nn. 8.1 & 26 (2d ed. 1994 & Supp.1997).