admission error in Florida

2019Because there is no jurisdictional defect or fundamental error in this case, we need not address the purely academic question raised by the dissents, i.e., whether an appellate court must act as standby appellate counsel and scour the record in each case for fundamental error. 5 defendant failed to brief fully and argue the issue); Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 637, 645 (Fla. 1995) (reiterating on direct appeal that “[t]he law is well settled that failure to raise an available issue constitutes an admission that no error occurred”); Duest v. Dugger, 555 So. 2d 849, 851-52 (Fla. 1990) (finding w

2007In considering I.R.C.’s appeal, we are limited to the specific issues that I.R.C. has raised. “[W]e are precluded from reviewing the issue” of the lawfulness of the detention “because it was not raised on appeal.” Grimsley v. State, 939 So.2d 123, 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 637, 645 (Fla.1995) (“The law is well settled that failure to raise an available issue constitutes an admission that no error occurred.”).

2017See Powell v. State, 912 So. 2d 698, 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("[T]he failure of the defense to depose a known witness 'is insufficient to overcome the state's failure to inform the defense of a statement made by the defendant to which the witness testifies.' '' (quoting Rainey v. State, 596 So. 2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992))).

2017See Powell v. State, 912 So.2d 698, 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“[T]he failure of the defense to depose a known witness ⅛ insufficient to overcome the state’s -failure to inform the defense of a statement made by the defendant to which the witness testifies,’ ” (quoting Rainey v. State, 596 So.2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992))), After the victim testified about the admission, Z.L. correctly argued to the trial court that the State had committed a discovery violation by not disclosing the statement.

2017While hearsay evidence is generally excluded as "inherently untrustworthy because the party against whom such evidence is offered has had no opportunity to test its veracity by cross-examining the statement at the time the statement was made," admissions of a party opponent are an exception to the rule because "a party can hardly complain that he had no opportunity to cross-examine himself at the time the admissions were made." Metropolitan Dade County v. Yearby, 580 So. 2d 186, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

2017While hearsay evidence is generally excluded as "inherently untrustworthy because the party against whom such evidence is offered has had no opportunity to test its veracity by cross-examining the statement at the time the statement was made,” admissions of a party opponent are an exception to the rule because “a party can hardly complain that he had no opportunity to cross-examine himself at the time the admissions were made.” Metropolitan Dade County v. Yearby, 580 So.2d 186, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

2017See Powell v. State, 912 So. 2d 698, 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("[T]he failure of the defense to depose a known witness 'is insufficient to overcome the state's failure to inform the defense of a statement made by the defendant to which the witness testifies.' '' (quoting Rainey v. State, 596 So. 2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992))).

2017See Powell v. State, 912 So.2d 698, 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“[T]he failure of the defense to depose a known witness ⅛ insufficient to overcome the state’s -failure to inform the defense of a statement made by the defendant to which the witness testifies,’ ” (quoting Rainey v. State, 596 So.2d 1295, 1296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992))), After the victim testified about the admission, Z.L. correctly argued to the trial court that the State had committed a discovery violation by not disclosing the statement.

2007In considering I.R.C.'s appeal, we are limited to the specific issues that I.R.C. has raised. "[W]e are precluded from reviewing the issue" of the lawfulness of the detention "because it was not raised on appeal." Grimsley v. State, 939 So.2d 123, 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 637, 645 (Fla.1995) ("The law is well settled that failure to raise an available issue constitutes an admission that no error occurred.").

2007In considering I.R.C.’s appeal, we are limited to the specific issues that I.R.C. has raised. “[W]e are precluded from reviewing the issue” of the lawfulness of the detention “because it was not raised on appeal.” Grimsley v. State, 939 So.2d 123, 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 637, 645 (Fla.1995) (“The law is well settled that failure to raise an available issue constitutes an admission that no error occurred.”).

2025The state even concedes such: “[I]t is true that the flip phone’s capabilities were never proven at trial.” Thus, the trial court erred when overruling appellant’s objection to “facts not in evidence.” Since the admission was in error, we apply the harmless error test to “those closing arguments where the defense objected to improper comments and the trial court erroneously overruled defense counsel’s objection.” Evans v. State, 177 So. 3d 1219, 1234 (Fla. 2015), receded from on other grounds by Johnson v. State, 252 So. 3d 1114, 1117-18 (Fla. 2018).

2025The state even concedes such: “[I]t is true that the flip phone’s capabilities were never proven at trial.” Thus, the trial court erred when overruling appellant’s objection to “facts not in evidence.” Since the admission was in error, we apply the harmless error test to “those closing arguments where the defense objected to improper comments and the trial court erroneously overruled defense counsel’s objection.” Evans v. State, 177 So. 3d 1219, 1234 (Fla. 2015), receded from on other grounds by Johnson v. State, 252 So. 3d 1114, 1117-18 (Fla. 2018).

2025Strong, 275 So. 3d at 765.

2023See Romani v. State, 542 So. 2d 984, 985, n.3 (Fla. 1989); Tucker v. State, 884 So. 2d 168, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

2023See Romani v. State, 542 So. 2d 984, 985, n.3 (Fla. 1989); Tucker v. State, 884 So. 2d 168, 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

2019Because there is no jurisdictional defect or fundamental error in this case, we need not address the purely academic question raised by the dissents, i.e., whether an appellate court must act as standby appellate counsel and scour the record in each case for fundamental error. 5 defendant failed to brief fully and argue the issue); Johnson v. State, 660 So. 2d 637, 645 (Fla. 1995) (reiterating on direct appeal that “[t]he law is well settled that failure to raise an available issue constitutes an admission that no error occurred”); Duest v. Dugger, 555 So. 2d 849, 851-52 (Fla. 1990) (finding w

2017See Calloway v. State, 210 So.3d 1160, 1183 (Fla. 2017) (“Self-serving hearsay statements are generally inadmissible.”).

2012Further, a clear and unambiguous admission of fact made by a party’s attorney in an opening statement in a civil or criminal case is binding upon the party.”); United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26, 30 (2nd Cir.1984) (“An admission by a defense attorney in his opening statement in a criminal trial has ... been held to eliminate the need for further proof on a given element of an offense.”) (citation omitted); Hall v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 447 F.Supp.2d 604, 608 (W.D.Va.2006) (“Though case law on the issue is scarce, the principle that an admission of counsel during trial ‘may dispense with

2012Further, a clear and unambiguous admission of fact made by a party’s attorney in an opening statement in a civil or criminal case is binding upon the party.”); United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26, 30 (2nd Cir.1984) (“An admission by a defense attorney in his opening statement in a criminal trial has ... been held to eliminate the need for further proof on a given element of an offense.”) (citation omitted); Hall v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 447 F.Supp.2d 604, 608 (W.D.Va.2006) (“Though case law on the issue is scarce, the principle that an admission of counsel during trial ‘may dispense with

2012Further, a clear and unambiguous admission of fact made by a party’s attorney in an opening statement in a civil or criminal case is binding upon the party.”); United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26, 30 (2nd Cir.1984) (“An admission by a defense attorney in his opening statement in a criminal trial has ... been held to eliminate the need for further proof on a given element of an offense.”) (citation omitted); Hall v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, 447 F.Supp.2d 604, 608 (W.D.Va.2006) (“Though case law on the issue is scarce, the principle that an admission of counsel during trial ‘may dispense with

2010Ventura v. State, 29 So.3d 1086, 1089-91 (Fla.2010) (citing State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986)).

2008See Garland v. State, 834 So.2d 265, 267-68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). 2) Questioning Biggs as to the problems between Pahokee citizens and the police, Love sought to establish that residents who talked to Biggs "were in a fearful state." The trial court properly sustained an objection based on relevance. 3) The trial court correctly sustained an objection to a question calling for Biggs to relate discussions with citizens about certain police officers.

2005Rivera argues that Judge Antoon's concurrence in Williams v. State, 734 So.2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), and Florida and United States Supreme Court decisions concerning hearsay and the Confrontation Clause mandate a reversal.

2005See Enchautegui v. State, 749 So.2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

2003See In re Commitment of Williams, 841 So.2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (determining that any error in the admission of the results of risk assessment instruments was harmless).

2000See id.

1998See generally, Wyatt v. State, 641 So.2d 1336 (Fla.1994) (statement defendant made to former employer was admissible under admission of party exception to hearsay rule); Hoefert v. State, 617 So.2d 1046 (Fla.1993)(former cellmate could testify that defendant said he got a thrill out of choking women during sex, as statement was admissible as exception to hearsay rule).