concept of fundamental error in Florida

2009Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134, 137 (Fla. 1970); see Farina v. State, 937 So.2d 612, 629 (Fla.2006); Smith v. State, 521 So.2d 106 (Fla.1988).

2007Ray v. State, 403 So.2d 956, 960 (Fla.1981) (quoting Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134, 137 (Fla.1970)); Smith v. State, 521 So.2d 106 (Fla.1988).

2009The concept of fundamental error is rooted in notions of due process, Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285 (Fla.1993), and the supreme court has cautioned appellate courts to exercise “ ‘very guardedly’ ” their discretion concerning fundamental error, and to apply the doctrine only in rare cases.

2007The concept of fundamental error is rooted in notions of due process, Sochor v. State, 619 So.2d 285 (Fla.1993), and appellate courts have been cautioned to exercise "`very guardedly'" their discretion concerning fundamental error, and to apply the doctrine only in rare cases.

2025In order to support reversal, the unobjected-to comments must rise to the level of fundamental error, which has been defined as error that “reaches 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 error.” Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 879 , 898–99 (Fla. 2000) (quoting McDonald v. State, 743 So. 2d 501, 505 (Fla. 1999) (citations omitted)).

2013Citing Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Florida, N.A., 666 So.2d 580, 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), our court explained that the error must be “so extreme that it could not be corrected by an instruction if an objection had been lodged, and that it so damaged the fairness of the trial that the public’s interest in our system of justice justifies a new trial even when no lawyer took the steps necessary to give a party the right to demand a new trial.” 727 So.2d at 1037 n. 4.

2013First, as to the court’s finding of fundamental error, in Fravel v. Haughey, 727 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), our court explained the concept of fundamental error as it applies to civil lawsuits.

2007See, e.g., Harris v. State, 937 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Brown v. State, 967 So.2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Davis, 804 So.2d at 405 .

2007See, e.g., Harris v. State, 937 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Brown v. State, 967 So.2d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Davis, 804 So.2d at 405 .

2007Appellate courts have, in accordance with the concept of fundamental error set out in Reed v. State, 837 So.2d 366 (Fla. 2002) (failure to correctly define "malice" in aggravated child abuse prosecution is fundamental error in cases where element of malice was disputed; otherwise error is not fundamental), examined the facts and circumstances of the particular case before determining that use of "and/or" rose to the level of fundamental error.

1999That division has to do with the concept of fundamental error; namely, when does prosecutorial misconduct justify the grant of a new trial in the absence of a proper objection below. [1] Some of the cases on point are as follows: Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (prosecutor's remarks that defendant "would not know truth if it hit him up side the head," that acquittal would mean that witnesses were "all a pack of liars" and that defendant had invented a "fairy tale" did not constitute fundamental error and thus defendant waived review by failing to object); Ross v. State, 72

1999That division has to do with the concept of fundamental error; namely, when does prosecutorial misconduct justify the grant of a new trial in the absence of a proper objection below. [1] Some of the cases on point are as follows: Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (prosecutor's remarks that defendant "would not know truth if it hit him up side the head," that acquittal would mean that witnesses were "all a pack of liars" and that defendant had invented a "fairy tale" did not constitute fundamental error and thus defendant waived review by failing to object); Ross v. State, 72

1999That division has to do with the concept of fundamental error; namely, when does prosecutorial misconduct justify the grant of a new trial in the absence of a proper objection below. [1] Some of the cases on point are as follows: Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (prosecutor's remarks that defendant "would not know truth if it hit him up side the head," that acquittal would mean that witnesses were "all a pack of liars" and that defendant had invented a "fairy tale" did not constitute fundamental error and thus defendant waived review by failing to object); Ross v. State, 72

1999That division has to do with the concept of fundamental error; namely, when does prosecutorial misconduct justify the grant of a new trial in the absence of a proper objection below. [1] Some of the cases on point are as follows: Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (prosecutor's remarks that defendant "would not know truth if it hit him up side the head," that acquittal would mean that witnesses were "all a pack of liars" and that defendant had invented a "fairy tale" did not constitute fundamental error and thus defendant waived review by failing to object); Ross v. State, 72

1999That division has to do with the concept of fundamental error; namely, when does prosecutorial misconduct justify the grant of a new trial in the absence of a proper objection below. [1] Some of the cases on point are as follows: Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (prosecutor's remarks that defendant "would not know truth if it hit him up side the head," that acquittal would mean that witnesses were "all a pack of liars" and that defendant had invented a "fairy tale" did not constitute fundamental error and thus defendant waived review by failing to object); Ross v. State, 72

1999That division has to do with the concept of fundamental error; namely, when does prosecutorial misconduct justify the grant of a new trial in the absence of a proper objection below. [1] Some of the cases on point are as follows: Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (prosecutor's remarks that defendant "would not know truth if it hit him up side the head," that acquittal would mean that witnesses were "all a pack of liars" and that defendant had invented a "fairy tale" did not constitute fundamental error and thus defendant waived review by failing to object); Ross v. State, 72

1999That division has to do with the concept of fundamental error; namely, when does prosecutorial misconduct justify the grant of a new trial in the absence of a proper objection below. [1] Some of the cases on point are as follows: Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (prosecutor's remarks that defendant "would not know truth if it hit him up side the head," that acquittal would mean that witnesses were "all a pack of liars" and that defendant had invented a "fairy tale" did not constitute fundamental error and thus defendant waived review by failing to object); Ross v. State, 72

1999That division has to do with the concept of fundamental error; namely, when does prosecutorial misconduct justify the grant of a new trial in the absence of a proper objection below. [1] Some of the cases on point are as follows: Henderson v. State, 727 So.2d 284 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (prosecutor's remarks that defendant "would not know truth if it hit him up side the head," that acquittal would mean that witnesses were "all a pack of liars" and that defendant had invented a "fairy tale" did not constitute fundamental error and thus defendant waived review by failing to object); Ross v. State, 72

1993Nevertheless, it appears that, given the presumption of inadmissibility accorded accusatory hearsay statements not admitted pursuant to a firmly rooted hearsay exception, Wright, 497 U.S. at 825-26 , 110 S.Ct. at 3152 , the trial court is required to specifically articulate its basis for its reliability conclusion in order to insure that the defendant’s right of confrontation is not violated.

1993Nevertheless, it appears that, given the presumption of inadmissibility accorded accusatory hearsay statements not admitted pursuant to a firmly rooted hearsay exception, Wright, 497 U.S. at 825-26 , 110 S.Ct. at 3152 , the trial court is required to specifically articulate its basis for its reliability conclusion in order to insure that the defendant’s right of confrontation is not violated.