COREY BURNELL
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Corey Burnell appealed a trial court decision, raising Confrontation Clause and cross-examination issues. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that Burnell failed to preserve his Confrontation Clause challenge for appeal and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding recross-examination.
Burnell's Confrontation Clause challenge was not preserved for appeal because he failed to make a timely, contemporaneous objection on Confrontation Clause grounds at trial. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in its decision regarding recross-examination, as trial courts have broad discretion in such matters.
“in order to preserve a Confrontation Clause challenge for appeal, a defendant must object on Confrontation Clause grounds in the trial court”
Establishes the preservation requirement for Confrontation Clause issues on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not provide detailed facts of the underlying case, focusing instead on procedural preservation requirements and standards of review.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Schoenwetter v. State, 931 So. 2d 857, 871 (Fla. 2006) (noting that in order to preserve a Confrontation Clause challenge for appeal, a defendant must object on Confrontation Clause grounds in the trial court); Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935, 940 (Fla. 2005) (explaining that to preserve an error for appeal, three requirements must be met: “First, a litigant must make a timely, contemporaneous objection.
Second, the party must state a legal ground for that objection.
Third, [i]n order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below. The purpose of this rule is to place [ ] the trial judge on notice that error may have been committed, and provide [ ] him an opportunity to correct it at an early stage of the proceedings.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
See also Knight v. State, 919 So. 2d 628, 636 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (noting a trial court generally has broad discretion in the decision to permit or deny recross-examination) (citing Hurst v. State, 825 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)); Wilcox v. State, 143 So. 3d 359, 389 (Fla. 2014) (“Discretion is abused only when the judicial action is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, which is another way of saying that discretion is abused only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.”) (quotation omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Harrell v. State, 894 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2005)
- Schoenwetter v. State, 931 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2006)
- Darious Wilcox v. State, 143 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 2014)
- Knight v. State, 919 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Hurst v. State, 825 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)